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

To: VeritatisSplendor
Well...anything's possible. ID will not get traction with science until it begins to follow the scientific method and generates data. A good starting point would be some testable hypotheses. It may be a swell idea, but it's not science.
55 posted on 06/09/2003 9:52:03 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Rudder
Well...anything's possible. ID will not get traction with science until it begins to follow the scientific method and generates data. A good starting point would be some testable hypotheses. It may be a swell idea, but it's not science.

OK...

Example A: Steven Hawking proposes a new Grand Unified Theory. An astronomer, using the Hubble, makes some observations that shed doubt on a couple of assumptions basic to Hawking's theory. He publishes a paper laying out these observations and their implications for the Hawking GUT. I think we would all agree that this is scientific activity.

Example B: Scientists use a theory of evolution that assumes random natural selection processes. One scientist examines recent discoveries in the field of molecular biology and discovers observations that shed doubt on the assumption of random natural selection. He publishes papers (and a popular book) laying out these discoveries and their implications for the evolutionary theory.

Why exactly is it that Example A science and Example B is hoodoo?

444 posted on 06/11/2003 10:31:14 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Sorry, I forgot to put a tagline here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | 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