The Scientific Method wasn’t developed to advance or protect the science of evolution. It applies uniformly to all natural phenomena that we can observe or even infer.
It certainly preceded Darwin.
Evolution has some problems with the Scientific Method, because it’s hard to run experiments to test it. You’d probably have to run a 40,000 year experiment to get a meaningful result. Perhaps longer, but species were involved that reproduced fairly quickly, that would give us some empirical test evidence.
But there is plenty of other evidence we have; the fossil record, radiometric dating, and genetics are just a few. And it also has a coherent theory of Natural Selection to explain how species change over time.
Intelligent Design only has a coherent theory of how things are today, but none of the other things that would provide evidence to support it. It’s a conclusion without much of an argument.
Nobody who didn’t already want ID to be the conclusion would argue that it’s science, because if it is, it doesn’t play by any of the scientific rules or methods.
It’s starting from the desired conclusion, and then looking anywhere for evidence to support it. And so far they have none, and probably never will because the desired conclusion is pretty firmly in the supernatural. Unless we can get God to perform magic tricks on stage before the camera it’s going to be very hard to prove that Adam was formed out of dirt and then a rib taken from him to form his wife. And how weird is that, anyhow?
I think I said it upthread, but I have no problem with anyone believing in ID if that’s what they want to do. I don’t think they should get away, though, with claiming it is science. It doesn’t get special rules just because it can’t produce any evidence.
It’s starting from the desired conclusion, and then looking anywhere for evidence to support it.
>>>>>Sounds just like evolution and several other scientific theories to me!
And so far they have none, and probably never will because the desired conclusion is pretty firmly in the supernatural.
>>>>Like cell phones 300 years ago.
Unless we can get God to perform magic tricks on stage before the camera it’s going to be very hard to prove that Adam was formed out of dirt and then a rib taken from him to form his wife. And how weird is that, anyhow?
>>>>Well, doesn’t this really all come down to your point of view or perspective?
Take a medication, some scientists might study a drug for their entire lives and be married to the success of it, indeed as Freud was to cocaine. But any drug will do, take morphine, some would swear by it and proclaim it does (or doesn’t do) things it doesn’t (or does) do (according to others), or that it shouldn’t be so tightly controlled. ALL of them have run exhaustive experiments, written papers, run trial after trial. Indeed some doctors won’t even prescribe it out of all kinds of fears or biases. Some might steer away from it because of the DEA ALONE! HARDLY science...SURPRISE!
And yet most would agree morphine has a place in medicine, yet doctors agree, disagree, then back again on MANY drugs. So again, it’s concensus.
But saying a Dr. is a quack because of his beliefs or disbeliefs over medicine begs the question: aren’t they ALL quacks? Isn’t medicine a mixture of science and art? I know nursing sure is!
And let’s just go ahead and ban those we disagree with?
Science doesn’t come in a nice neat vacuum all by itslf, it’s influenced by religion, art, history, math...sheesh, can you imagine a history professor scream: “but, that’s not history”...or a math teacher scream: “but that’s not math”?
That’s not science has been said before: if you showed up in time travel to 800 AD in Europe with a cell phone and microwave, SCIENTISTS would burn you at the stake! Scientists are peole, they don’t know evewrything, they make mistakes and we’ve made discoveriesthat have literally redefined what we call science, so why the need to censor or prohibit free speech?
But this isn’t just true of science, as I said before, liberals re-writing history books comes to mind. Hi-jacking the country in all kinds of ways.
As far as God’s ways being weird...you seem to want it both ways, it can’t be science and HAS to be supernatural, but something like creating man from dirt or Eve from his rib is weird? Isn’t that the very idea of being supernatural though? Yet, the supernatural has become natural to us with cell phones and micowaves over time...something evolution gets a pass on btw...but not ID?
How weird is everything just “is” with absolutely ZERO explanation how matter just big banged it’s way here and nothing has a purpose or explanation, not to mention there was once upon a time a big glob of cells, then salamanders, then rodents, then apes then oh yeah, man!?
It’s really perspective AND science.
And since science is run by imperfect humans, I’ll be a little open minded and not judging what is or isn’t science now, let alone what it might look like in the future.
If it’s “not science” what’s the harm in letting that play out?