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

To: FormerRep

Ehh.. to me the Roman Catholic Church over reaches at times, what is dogma today can be debunked tomorrow.

But the basic point, that Faith and Evolution can co-exist is solid, the problem lays when one tried to dispense with the other one as “discarded”.

In my view, ID is not science, it is a theory in search of evidence to support it, unless and until it does find that evidence, Evolution should be taught in Science Classrooms, flaws and all.


34 posted on 11/20/2008 8:53:05 AM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile...Rom 10.10..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: padre35
In my view, molecules to man evolution is not science, it is a theory in search of evidence to support it. The distinction between what can be scientifically observed and what is theorized should be clearly stated when taught in the classroom.

I can observe the process of creating a microprocessor and show that intelligent design is involved. But should I extrapolate from that observation that anything more complex than a microprocessor requires intelligent design?

38 posted on 11/20/2008 9:11:00 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: padre35
In my view, ID is not science, it is a theory in search of evidence to support it...

One minor point--

In science, as opposed to popular usage, a theory has been thoroughly tested and explains all of the relevant data, and has successfully made predictions leading to new data.

ID would be classified as an idea, or perhaps an hypothesis.

A couple of the definitions from my FR homepage may help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."


40 posted on 11/20/2008 9:13:26 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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