Replies

But that doesn't disprove it, because evolution is random, and it may have taken different paths along previous branches and we just don't have enough fossil records to show it yet.

Actually, it kills all established lines of descent regarding mammals. It would throw out the entirety of what we call the theory of evolution today. It is a falsification criteria.

If you're requirement of a "falsification criteria" is what makes something a scientific theory, then evolution isn't a theory either.

No, because unlike you, scientists do not play semantic games.

Evolution says things evolved due to random chance and natural selection.

It says nothing about "random chance"

However, because it is based on random chance rather than predefined design, the possibility exists of evolution taking multiple paths over time, and what might look like a falsification at a micro level, is really multiple separate paths of evolution at a macro level.

Except that it's not "random chance", so your conclusion is meaningless.

No, if you want to exclude it you need to prove that there is no falsification criteria, and that is logically impossible to prove.

Wrong. You claim it's a theory, therefore the onus is upon you to validate the claim by presenting the information that makes it a theory. Amongst this information is a hypothetical falsification criteria. If you cannot do this, then you cannot claim that Intelligent Design is a theory, and it is fundamentally dishonest to do so. It isn't my job to evaluate every crackpot explanation that comes along to see if there is a potential falsification criteria. If an explanation is a theory, then the person who presents this explanation as a theory should be able to provide a falsification criteria.

Theories don't need to be provable,

You're not paying attention. Theories cannot be provable. Nothing in science is ever "proven".

but rules you use to define things cannot rely on things that are not provable.

It's not my job to prove that an explanation is unfalsifiable. Shifting the burden of demonstrating non-falisifiability and saying "it's a theory if you can't do it!" is a dishonest cop-out. If you don't have a defined falsification criteria, then your explanation is not well-defined enough to be termed "theory".

You cannot prove that something does not have a falsification criteria.

That's not my job. A theory must have a defined falsification criteria. You are trying to redefine the standards for scientific inquiry because you don't like the existing set. I'm not falling for it. Then you cannot prove that anything is not a theory, and your definition is useless.

Wrong. If it does not have a defined falsification criteria, then it isn't a theory. If someone comes up with a falsification criteria for "intelligent design", then that obstacle will be overcome and it will simply need to meet the other standards required for an explanation to be considered a scientific theory. The designation of a Theory as opposed to a Hypotheses or Law relies in a great part of the subjective as well as the objective.

The designation between hypothesis and theory is based upon the quantity and quality of successful predictions made by the explanation. The designation between theory and law is based upon the type of statement it is. I've already explained the difference between "theory" and "law" with respect to science, and how one does not ever become the other. Could you stop pretending that theories and laws are differentiated only by levels of certainty since you should know better by now?

Evolution is considered a Theory because there's enough examined evidence that it is plausible.

Moreover, there is the number of successful predictions from the theory. That's also an important factor to consider.

It is considered to be possible by a great many people.

Which is fine, but truth isn't determined by the number of people who believe a statement. Evolution's validity is a result of successful predictions and validated evidence, not the number of people who think that it is true.

However, I would bet there are more people who believe that the universe and life were created by the design of some intelligent entity than there are people that can even explain what evolution is.

Which is irrelevant. Popularity has no bearing on truth value. Intelligent design isn't even really in opposition to Evolution, except when people start insisting that there was no design that set things in motion, or when people argue that nothing is random.

That's not my point. Intelligent Design may well be true. My point is that Intelligent Design is NOT science, and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.

Both are strongly held theories.

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. Ignoring everything that I have said regarding the standards for defining an explanation as a theory does not change this fact.

Both should be taught.

No, it is fundamentally dishonest to present ID as a "theory". Anyone who does is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

Why they are theories and why they we haven't been able to prove them should also be taught.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. You haven't even provided a defined falsification criteria. Theories must, by definition have a DEFINED falsification criteria. If an explanation does not have this, then it is not a theory, and it is dishonest to present it as such. I know that you're deliberately ignoring the criteria required for an explanation to be termed "theory". This does not make you right, it only makes you look stubbornly dishonest. If ID is a theory, then you must be able to state a hypothetical observation that would prove it false.

and why they we haven't been able to prove them should also be taught.

Theories in science cannot be proven. ABSOLUTELY NO THEORY IN SCIENCE EVER HAS OR WILL BE PROVEN. That is why we cannot "prove" evolution. Why are you ignoring this fact and pretending that somehow some theories can be proven despite having been told otherwise by multiple people on multiple occasions?

You have made it abundantly clear here that you're not interested in discussing reality. You're here to make up a defition of "theory" not used by the scientific community, and you insist that it is the real one no matter how often you are told otherwise. You want to use a lie as your initial premise, and as a result all conclusions that you draw from it are fundamentally flawed. If you not only clearly lack understanding of the scientific method but also make it abundantly clear that you don't want to use the definitions of the scientific method and would rather use your own, why should anything you say be taken seriously?

"Actually, it kills all established lines of descent regarding mammals. It would throw out the entirety of what we call the theory of evolution today. It is a falsification criteria."

And it wouldn't be the first time that a fossil showed up that contradicted an established theoriy based on the theory of evolution. It wouldn't however contradict the theory of evolution because multiple paths of evolution could result in result in similar lines through natural selection because it's a random process.

That would be like me saying that ID is contradicted because some geneticly engineered organism was created by a scientist, and not God.

It's the fallacy of arguing from the specific to the general. Your example may bring some commonly held beliefs into question, but it does not disprove the theory of evolution.

" No, because unlike you, scientists do not play semantic games."

You're arguing the definition of Science and the definition of a theory to justify not teaching something. Your whole argument is about semantics, not substance.

The issue is about purposfully not exposing students to different concepts and teaching them how to evaluate those concepts. That leaves students with less knowledge and less understanding, not more.

You haven't brought up an issue that isn't about semantics.