In science theories summarize available data, are coherent and are based upon the results of hypotheses testing. A theory in science is not merely a hunch based upon a single observation or experience, but rather the end-product of a lengthy series of investigations on the same topic. In order to qualify for a scientific investigation, ID should first generate hypotheses, test these, analyze the data and proceed again and again, ad nauseum, until a bona fide, full-fledged and heuristic theory can be amassed. Then, and only then, does the fun begin--a theory which generates numerous, related hypotheses, all of which are testable by the scientifc method.
ID has long, long way to go before it can fulfill these criteria. Until that happens, science sees ID as non-existent.
sewer <== offal - smegga - darwin - REASON -- Judgement Day -- Jesus Christ -- Alpha - Omega ==> New Jerusalem
121 posted on
06/10/2003 11:34:12 AM PDT by
f.Christian
(( apocalypsis, from Gr. apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover))
In science theories summarize available data, are coherent and are based upon the results of hypotheses testing. A theory in science is not merely a hunch based upon a single observation or experience, but rather the end-product of a lengthy series of investigations on the same topic. Right on.
ID has long, long way to go before it can fulfill these criteria. Until that happens, science sees ID as non-existent.
The word “non-existent” is the realm of the closed-mindedness and knee-jerk reaction. “Unproven” or "unsupported" is the realm of science.
I am in no position to argue ID – that is not my position right now. My position pro-open-mind and con-knee-jerk evolutionist slogans.