Replies

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.

Just a question though: suppose for the sake of argument that ID and/or some creation agent played at least some part in the actual development of life.

Would they be science then? And would any science that a priori excluded them be good science?

"...Just a question though: suppose for the sake of argument that ID and/or some creation agent played at least some part in the actual development of life.

Would they be science then? And would any science that a priori excluded them be good science?"

This is false reasoning. Suppose pixies from the netherworld created life. Suppose Mars is made of reddish colored styrofoam. (We have not retreived samples, we just have pictures) Suppose, suppose, suppose. You can suppose any half-assed idea, but it is NOT "good science" to be chasing down and refuting ideas for which there is NO physical evidence, or measurable phenomenon.

So, suppose Pixies designed all life. Please define an experiment to support or disprove the Pixie theory. Kinda hard, huh?

So, suppose Mars is made from styrofoam. Define an experiment to support or disprove the styrofoam theory. This is easier: Go to Mars and bring back some rocks. Kinda expensive, huh? But hey, if I as a Scientist just "ruled out" styrofoam, I'm not practicing "good science". Why, I can justify spending a few billion to bring back some samples, because, hey, it could be styrofoam.

"Good Science" is the following:

(1) Observing physical reality
(2) Forming theories based on observations
(3) Constructing experiments to test theories from Step 2
(4) Take the results of the experiments are repeat from Step 1 as long as a better understanding is desired.

Now that's good science.

Would they be science then? And would any science that a priori excluded them be good science?

Since there is no testable method for proving or disproving ID, it cannot be science. No difference than if I posit elves had a hand in the diversity of the species. That too is not disprovable, however, it certainly is not science.

Well done, r9 ... you've just hit the nail smack dab on the head, but judging from the responses so far I don't think they understand your point.

Congregants of the Church of Darwinism claim exclusive privilege to define science in order to differentiate their faith from the Creationists'.