Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of an ID hypothesis, however.

Please. You've been on these threads long enough to know that scientific theories are never knowably true. It is a category mistake to speak of truth and scientific theories.

Or have I misunderstood you? Since you do know this and you still say "truth ... of an ID hypothesis" are you then admitting that ID is not a scientific theory? Very clever.

To the contrary, I specifically addressed the differences between science and engineering in my previous post.

Yes, I see now that you did toward the end. And yet in the beginning of your post you conflate them.

Your challenge makes no sense.

I will try to explain. A scientific theory has two parts. There is a deductive, axiomatic theory and a physical interpretation of the terms of the theory. A scientific theory explains some phenomenon if the phenomenon is the interpration of a statement which is a theorem of the theory. Such phenomena are called predictions of the theory. If they are observed they are called confirming evidence of the theory.

Now I hope that is clear. Lets see you employ ID theory to make a testable prediction.

104 posted on 09/14/2005 7:37:38 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: edsheppa

Not much time for a thorough response, but let me ask you this: are you saying that science has no way to deal with engineering?


125 posted on 09/14/2005 2:40:09 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson