Replies

It only works if your assumption is correct. We could equally say quit trying to understand gravity... it is an "Intelligent hand" pushing you down. Or quit studying weather because it is an "intelligent weatherman" making the weather.

I am not saying that we quit trying to understand anything. The collection of data and information is important whether or not the theories that try to explain it are accurate or incomplete or not.

Most great technology happens because we have a lot of data points, not because we understand what is going on. Most great technology discoveries are done using trial and error, which you would not need if you understood how everything works beforehand.

One good example is microprocessor technology, which was relatively new when I was in college. When I took a microcircuits technology class, there was only one textbook out on creating microprocessor circuits on silicon wafers. Rather than a bunch of canned formulas, it was basically like a cookbook where you started out etching a pattern created by some image projected by light waves that allowed an acid to etch the surface and then apply p and n type material in hot gas concentrations. All of this knowledge had been obtained by extensive trial and error, the temperature, concentrations of gases, types of material used, etc.

Indeed the initial momentum for doing this came from theories about silicon and other elements that allowed them to create p and n junctions, which if they were wrong the silicon idea might would not have worked, but the real solution came from actually trying to do it.

I think the same is true for the pharmeceutical companies. They may start out with a theory, but some are dead ends but even goods ones involve extensive trial and error testing.

One of the problems with evolution theories is there is no possibility to do trial and error testing on whether we all descended from some initial life form. All methods of trying to verify such ideas are indirect and require many assumptions and theories that themselves cannot be verified directly.

One of the problems with evolution theories is there is no possibility to do trial and error testing on whether we all descended from some initial life form. All methods of trying to verify such ideas are indirect and require many assumptions and theories that themselves cannot be verified directly.

Yes, well... Creationism has this same problem does it not? As a matter of fact human history in general has this problem, right? Doesn't mean we stop trying find the truth through evidence, right? And what does the evidence say? Well... life existed on Earth long before mankind appeared on the scene. There were species of animal and plants that appeared and disappeared... and that is a fact.

Since you are so fond of pointing out your issues with evolutionists let me point out one for you regarding the ID/Creationists... Want to make a claim that ID is a valid scientific theory... fine... back it up with the same amount of evidence as Evolution and fight it out in academia. Put your hypothesis through rigorous scientific debate first. That is the process we follow or we SHOULD follow. Instead... you decided to take the bottom up approach and teach it in public schools instead. You circumvent the way science has been taught.

I know of no other scientific theory that takes the same "bottom-up" approach and it is obvious why you are attempting to do it. Look at Dover, PA... they threw out those guys trying to push ID and what did Pat Robertson say about it? Did he say "Hmmm... those people are scientifically backwards"? No... he said if God punishes Dover then no one will come to help them.

Now what kind of nonsense is that? Is this what you stand for? It seems many freepers are on his side. Well too bad for them because he is on the wrong side.