Do you have any references for this? If what you're saying is true, then these theories do have a scientific basis. But that of course is a mighty big "if".
It hasn't been that long since science marched along happily proving over and over that the ether existed, and the continents were fixed.
Then new data came along to undercut these theories. What relevance does that have to anything we're talking about?
As noted above, you are mistaken regarding Einsteinian mechanics, it gives widespead, and important astronomical predictions at wide variance from observation.
That makes it inferior to Newtonian theory? Bet me.
At any rate, are you under the impression that calculations in physical dynamics or physical chemistry are normally done using einsteinian mechanics?
No. Again, you're talking practicality. That's not what I'm arguing. All you're saying is that the improved accuracy from relativity theory does not, in these cases, warrant the extra labor necessary for calculations using it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is sound.
If you can undersand why SETI is a scientific endeavor, but ID ain't
You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory. Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
I used to program on an UNIVAC 1108.
Do you have any references for this?
Look in the astrology column of your newspaper--people are constantly writing in to report the success of their astrological predictions, and in far vaster numbers than astronomers are reporting successes in predicting large-scale orbits using einsteinian mechanics.
If what you're saying is true, then these theories do have a scientific basis. But that of course is a mighty big "if".
You mean, like the ether theory, or the fixed continent theory had?
It hasn't been that long since science marched along happily proving over and over that the ether existed, and the continents were fixed.
Then new data came along to undercut these theories. What relevance does that have to anything we're talking about?
Just like new data will no doubt come along and prove the ID theory accurate, and the macro-evolutionary theory innacurate, eh? Might as well start looking for the evidence now, just as we do with SETI.
As noted above, you are mistaken regarding Einsteinian mechanics, it gives widespead, and important astronomical predictions at wide variance from observation.
That makes it inferior to Newtonian theory? Bet me.
No, but it makes them both inferior to ID theory, regarding demonstrated puzzling failures of predictive accuracy about major astronomical events that, nonetheless, do not prevent them from being sciences taught in the classroom.
At any rate, are you under the impression that calculations in physical dynamics or physical chemistry are normally done using einsteinian mechanics?
No. Again, you're talking practicality.
I'm not, I'm talking about just about every natural science other than astronomical physics.
That's not what I'm arguing. All you're saying is that the improved accuracy from relativity theory does not, in these cases, warrant the extra labor necessary for calculations using it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is sound.
That wasn't the statement I was arguing about: I was arguing about your claim that Einsteinian mechanics was "infinitely superior" to Newtonian mechanics. Which is, by the way, not picking nits--it is relevant to the question of how strong a theory's claims have to be to make it into a high school textbook.
If you can undersand why SETI is a scientific endeavor, but ID ain't
You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory.
Well, of course it's a theory, and I can state it: "There exist living entities on other planets". You're trying to erect an artificial distinction of little meaningful value.
Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
Nonsense, you are looking for signs of intelligence on other planets, and somehow you want to convince me that that's more scientific than looking for signs of intelligent life left as fossil footprints in our DNA. There's no strong basis for such a distinction: theories just have degrees of credibility--there's no switch someone throws that makes some blessed and some not.
Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
Which is different from ID how? ID is quite carefully (craftily, I would have said) not claiming to know what might have caused macro-evolution: just that it would like to consider it legitimate to look for signs--just like SETI wants to look for signs, without claiming to have pre-conceived notions as to what those signs might look like, or portend.