That’s simply not an excuse to say “it’s poorly written”, when again dozens and dozens of other sites call it multiverse theory. No, I never heard of “fecund universe theory”, and it’s pretty irrelvant to the point I made too.
Alot of people assert the democratic party is a viable party that is the party that looks out for the little guy, while asserting the Republican party does not. But that’s just not true either.
“The mathematicians seem to love it, but the scientists have been saying where’s the beef. What’s the issue? For the most part – falsifiability. String theory is an excellent example of how seriously scientists take falsifiability. So trying to use string theory as an example of how falsification isn’t necessarily an issue is a bit odd when it’s the bugbear that’s been haunting string theory from the beginning. (So just a warning, don’t go up to a string theorist and ask why the theory is getting a “free pass” despite its falsification issue – you’ll probably get punched.) And that’s all despite the fact that it seems that it really IS testable – it’s just rather difficult to do so. And anyway, AFAIK the theory isn’t taught in public school (which was the original topic IIRC)”.
Soooo, why is it called string theory by people then, especially people on this threead and many others, bleating ID is NOT a theory then? You simply don’t get to have it both ways.
And where are the lawsuits? Because this is exactly the kind of hypocrisy I point out each and every time I hear people say ID isn’t falsifiable, testable, verifiable, etc. and therefore can’t BE a theory and therefore isn’t “science”.
And how do you know it’s not “taught” in public school? You don’t have any possible way of verifying what is or isn’t taught in every single public school, and nevertheless, what’s taught in public school wasn’t the issue rather what’s “science”.
You and your ilk’s argument is that ID isn’t verifiable or falsifiable and therefore isn’t “science”...btw, evolution fits that bill too. Because you “imagine” a bunch of bones that have similarities doesn’t mean they’re related or ancestors in any way shape or form, it’s all sheer conjecture.
Sure the ACLU has “fought for religious freedoms”. It also is on record for being antagonistic to one religion in particular. Occasionally it’ll even stand up for Christianity, but for the most part schizophrenically attacks it. I would also say most FReepers understand this.
“That’s simply not an excuse to say “it’s poorly written”, when again dozens and dozens of other sites call it multiverse theory. No, I never heard of “fecund universe theory”, and it’s pretty irrelvant to the point I made too.”
—There isn’t really an “it” to call multiverse theory; except perhaps “the idea that there are multiple universes” - and with the multitude of definitions out there for “universe”, even that description is pretty meaningless. The site you found isn’t really talking about “multiverse theory”, it was a description of the fecund universe theory, which happens to include an idea of multiple universes.
It would be like googling “God theory” and finding a page with the headline of “God theory” but all it is is a few paragraphs talking about the Bahai religion, without ever mentioning the Bahai religion by name, and describing it as essentially *the* idea of God. If not poorly written - it would certainly be misleading.
“Soooo, why is it called string theory by people then, especially people on this threead and many others, bleating ID is NOT a theory then? You simply don’t get to have it both ways”
—It’s called a theory by a lot of people because they believe it’s a theory and that it’s falsifiable. Many others don’t view it as a legitimate scientific theory and instead view it as merely as a mathematical model or framework. That’s not having it both ways - that’s simply called a controversy.
“And how do you know it’s not “taught” in public school? You don’t have any possible way of verifying what is or isn’t taught in every single public school, and nevertheless, what’s taught in public school wasn’t the issue rather what’s “science”.
—I think I made it pretty clear that I didn’t know, although I’d be pretty surprised to find string theory in a high school science book. And the reason I’d be surprised to find it in textbooks is because of the controversy surrounding it (not to mention it would be a rather difficult subject for high schoolers!). As for what the teachers are doing, who knows, there could be teachers out there telling students it’s turtles all the way down.
“And where are the lawsuits?”
—Lawsuits to do what?
“You and your ilk’s argument is that ID isn’t verifiable or falsifiable and therefore isn’t “science”...btw, evolution fits that bill too. Because you “imagine” a bunch of bones that have similarities doesn’t mean they’re related or ancestors in any way shape or form, it’s all sheer conjecture.”
—I prefer “inference”. :-) We don’t just see similarities between life forms and bones - we see the similarities fit a specific pattern. If life forms merely had similarities, it would be a big “taxonomic mesh”, instead its a taxonomic tree. Why? Taxonomy alone smacks of evolution, and as if that weren’t enough the fossil record matches the taxonomic tree - chronologically we have lemurs, than monkeys, then apes, then humans. And we see this same pattern again and again in biogeography, embryology, genetics, etc. All this leaves plenty of room for falsification, and makes common descent an inescapable inference.