Grow Some Testables: Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science.

Slate.com ^ | Sept. 29, 2005 | William Saletan

[goldstategop]

Exactly - questions about God and ultimate origins belong in a religion or comparative philosophy class. They have no place in science class. If Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis, it deserves to be evaluated through the scientific method. Only then can it be considered a valid explanatory model.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[PatrickHenry]

ping

[ReignOfError]

Slapping the word "research" on it doesn't make it science.

[Just mythoughts]

"Slapping the word "research" on it doesn't make it science."


Well couldn't one "research" the minds of the evolutionists made possible by these evolutionary protection threads?

I think a case could be made based upon the method of operation of the evolutionists mind, now somebody thought it a great victory to post a "Fast Eddie" Rendell support of evolution thread.

There is plenty of EVIDENCE that is certainly TESTABLE left by the minds of the evolutionists....

[chinche]

Is SETI science?

As I understand things, serious ID is heavily oriented towards math, probability and information theory. It could probably exist as a field of rigorous study without much immediate "testable" implications. For example, what is the minimum size family of specified complexity criteria that would warrant calling something the product of design? That would be applicable to any number of practical fields (forensics, archeology, and SETI, say), but offer no obvious hypotheses in and of itself. And if some biologist applies those criteria to some natural phenomena, well ... so what? The natural phenomena meet the criteria or not. That is not ID’s problem, except insofar as the criteria are theoretically sound, which has nothing to do with the specific hypothesis being put forth by the practical researcher. I frankly fail to see the non-political controversy of ID.

[chinche]

How does one test the Darwinian model? What is the null and what is the alternative? What evidence might cause one to reject the null?

[indcons]

LOL....nice try. Didn't work.....try again.

[little jeremiah]

Tell you what. You go back in time and record evolution happening, and I'll "believe" it.

Darwinsism is a flapping corpse. Non agenda driven scientists would be happy to have people question their theories, it would help them sharpen their wits and try to further broaden their knowledge.

In one or two generations, it'll be all over except for the growling in the corners.

So you're complaining that ID doesn't necessarily have another explanation for the existence of life and varying life forms. So therefore they aren't allowed a little question or two.

Odd. I though scientists welcomed questions. Agenda driven scientists don't.

Have a nice day.

[little jeremiah]

How about this: In a science class, a book such as "Darwin's Black Box" is discussed, and the questions Behe brings up are defeated or dissected. What would be wrong with that?

[blowfish]

That's what I think would happen if the IDers force their way into the classrooms by legal means. Science teachers would take such delight in exposing ID for the claptrap that it is that the IDers would then scream to get it taken *out* of the classroom.

[Skooz]

Oh for cryin' out loud.

Will you crevo maniacs please get this settled? Please?

[Dimensio]

Nobody can prove either side of the debate, so it all comes down to where you place your faith, in the scientist's "Big Bang" theory or in religion and God.

False equivocation and false dichotomy.

[Dimensio]

Evolution, on the other hand, is held entirely as a theory

What else would be? What other kinds of explanations for phenomena are there in science, what are more certain than "theory"?

[Dimensio]

How does one test the Darwinian model?

If you find Precambrian rabbit fossils or a transposon in whales and cows that does not also appear in hippos, you've just thrown a monkey wrench into common descent. There's your test.

[Dimensio]

In one or two generations, it'll be all over except for the growling in the corners.

Yep. Any day now....

[Salvation]

Evidently the Slate crew doesn't use spellcheck??

[Dimensio]

And in an astronomy class, we present literature from moon landing deniers. And in history class, we present information from holocaust deniers. Just to give students a balanced view of all sides of the respective debates.

[Right Wing Professor]

Here's a suggestion. Why can't science teachers spend a few minutes, after or during a discussion on evolution, say something like this: "There are some scientists and others who have some criticisms of the theory of evolution. They say there are holes in its arguments. If anyone would like to read about their criticisms, here are some books they have written. You're welcome to read them after school."

There are fringe criticisms of every theory in science. Should we treat all of them the same way?

But I am currently reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and recently finished "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton.

Have you ever read a good description of evolution, written by an evolutionist?

[LiteKeeper]

Agreed

[jennyp]

Until very recently, I never ever (well, hardly ever!) visited any evolution threads. No point. And I plan not to in the future. But I am currently reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and recently finished "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton. Why not have a discussion of the arguments they raise? What could be the harm? If authors such as those two (and there are others) are rejected out-of-hand because they don't accept Darwinist evolutionary theory, then what kind of truth is science searching for?

Since you're in a reading mood, I suggest you pick up one or two other books, written by conservatives: Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, and Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart.