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

To: GodGunsGuts
disproving the theory of evolution would not “prove” ID.

I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

That would make it even harder for ID to replace the new theory of evolution.

The one thing that is preventing ID from "becoming a mainstream scientific research project" is that it is inspired by religious belief, not science! The vast majority of ID proponents are Christian creationists, who believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. When they try to do science it is transparently obvious where their beliefs lie, and their beliefs are not in the scientific method.

Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

A significant percentage of folks who argue for ID also quote scripture, suggest those who support the theory of evolution are destined to hell, and exhibit other characteristics which suggest that it is not science, but pushing religion, that is their primary motivation.

Why should we believe for a minute that ID is anything more than creation "science" warmed over after the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s?

83 posted on 06/16/2007 8:05:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: Coyoteman

==If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.

Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.


85 posted on 06/16/2007 8:21:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman
==Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.

My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.

87 posted on 06/16/2007 8:35:01 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | 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