Excellent point. Please note we do not use science to determine the truth of such cases. Rather a jury hears the evidence before trying to reach a conclusion. No tests for verification or falsification are performed afterwords. If we really could reliably perform such tests about past events we would.
Neither "intelligent design" nor "common descent" are scientific theories. They are conclusions about the past that can not be reliably tested for verification or falsification. I am dismayed at the constant bickering on both sides of this debate about which is "science" and which is not -- which seems to be continually blurred with the concept of what is actually true.
A conclusion that is grounded in science can be true, and it can be false. A conclusion that is not scientific can be true and it can be false. Even a mere legend can be true and it can be false. Which is obvious--but you wouldn't know it from reading these seemingly endless quarrels.
Science is the most effective way of finding truth in controlled circumstances. The really big questions of our existence and the ancient past are not so controlled. In this case it is better to look at all the evidence, our experiences, and best use our reason, intellect, wisdom and or insight to reach an untestable conclusion. Dressing such efforts up as science to give them more credibility is sophmoric and counter productive!
This is not to say that there isn't often some new evidence found by science that helps us shed some light on such matters, just as new evidence can shed light on a court case -- and might even result in a new verdict. But lets not kid ourselves concerning what is actually be tested in such experiments. A specific test might be more consistent with one world-view over another, but such world-views are "moving targets", and resist falsification by experiment. Rather the particulars within them will merely be adjusted to new evidence without changing the overall view.
[[Dressing such efforts up as science to give them more credibility is sophmoric and counter productive!]]
Agree with most of what you say- just one point about hte above quote- That I think is not true- There is science behind both Hypothesis, actually a lot of science- noone is dressing up either side- juts stating the facts about hte science involved which strengthen the valid systems used- The science within the systems stand on their own, and as such, we aren’t, as I said, dressing anythign up- there’s no need to in many cases.
[[but such world-views are “moving targets”, and resist falsification by experiment.]]
I have to dissagree- the system of Baraminology rests on major classes that can be either falsified or affirmed through scientific studies such as genetics. While it’s true that we can’t go back to creation and do experiential testing on past for htem ost part, we can observe the genetic and biological evidences and determine that the evidence and facts fit the different categories of Baramins- there is nothing sophmoric about investigating the science that determines the outcomes, nor is there anythign sophmoric abotu discussing the actual science regardless of the world view one holds. I’ve repeatedly asked for the counter arguments to contain scientific evidences showing that species can’t be classified as major kinds- or groups, and that, I think, is where htis discussion needs to move on to if anything productive is going to come from it. We’ve hit the speedbumps of opinion, now it’s time to move on.