Replies

It's the same as the church telling Galileo not to teach that the earth revolves around the sun, or at least to also teach the earth centric model. Do you think the science community should meet this with a half-hearted, ho-hum defense?

There is no theocracy in America pushing down Darwin as Aristotle did Gallileo. It were not the church itself, but followers of Aristotle within the church which insisted that "the heavier something is, the faster it falls".

The church then did not practice theology but Aristotelian theory and philosophy. It's just that the church had a monopoly over education.

And, by the way, Kopernic himself used the current theories to figure a way and it did not work.The errors and bad schools of the past were the things which when recognized and disproved help prove things and advance science.

Scientists should be busy trying to disproving ID rather than aborting the thought of it. Yet they are not scientists enough to do what they advocate to do, to let science itself decide.

Proof by the absurdity is always used, computer error algorithms are what enable us to manage bugs and incongruous requests by a user. Scientists should focus on developing critical methods and curriculae. But since this would mean a threat to their current stature as their own theories get ammended by smarter and younger ones, they don't want to...they violate Darwin's theory itself and sin.

Scientists should be busy trying to disproving ID rather than aborting the thought of it. Yet they are not scientists enough to do what they advocate to do, to let science itself decide.

You can't scientifically disprove ID. It's a religious Idea, not a scientific one. This point has been made so many times, by so many scientists, that it beggars the imagination it still hasn't sunk in to some people.

Scientists should be busy trying to disproving ID rather than aborting the thought of it. Yet they are not scientists enough to do what they advocate to do, to let science itself decide.

And how would they go about doing that? How do you disprove the existence/influence of a supernatural force? Tell me what scientists could show that would disprove ID.

[hint] There isn't any way. That's why ID can't be a "theory."

...Scientists should be busy trying to disproving ID ...

How would you do that? If there are no constraints on what the hypothetical designer could do, what possible observation could show that some structure wasn't designed?

For example, it has been found that certain genetic markers, ERVs, have the property that if one is found in both gorillas and chimps, it will also be found in people. The ToE hypothesizes that this is because people share a common ancestor with chimps, and that this common ancestor and gorillas have another common ancestor. Assuming this, the conclusion follows that the same pattern will be found for other ERVs and also other DNA structures. So far, this has always been observed.

ID cannot make this prediction; there is nothing to say whether the hypothetical designer was forced to maintain this pattern.

Finding counterexamples to this pattern would be a big blow against ToE.

In contrast, there is no possible observation that would have the same effect on ID. ID is vacuous; it can accomodate any observation.

That's why it's not science. That's why scientists get riled up when politicians try to pretend that it is science.

There is no theocracy in America pushing down Darwin as Aristotle did Gallileo... It's just that the church had a monopoly over education.

And, it just so happens that the government (regrettably) has a near monopoly on education, and that ID supporters are attempting to use the government and schools to promote their theory (instead of establishing their theory through scientific channels). The analogy holds.

Why aren't there dozens or hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in major journals that propound what ID predicts and what its mechanism is? Don't give me the old canard about scientists "keeping it out"... a physics luminary like Einstein worked very hard to disprove and discredit quantum mechanics, but the scientific community was persuaded by the arguments and usefulness of QM. Where are the arguments for ID? What is its fundamental usefulness as a theory?

There are no arguments for ID, no explanations for its mechanics, no usefulness as a theory, because it isn't science. Please tell me exactly what ID predicts will occur in the future, what mechanism it operates by, and how that enhances our knowledge of the way the universe works...