Dixie, Step Up

AC is right and Dixie is smart not to debate him as he would certainly lose. If Dixie were to debate him on the scientific merit of "Intelligent Design" AC would demand that Dixie identify who or what this designer is. That leaves Dixie in a quandry. If he states the Designer is J.K. Rowbling, he can be proven materialy wrong. If Dixie says it is "God" or some other diety then it places the concept outside the scope of science. The same would be true if he would fail to identify who or what the designer is.
 
Do they even have a hypothesis?

And like you said, how can you hypothesis be tested?

How do you observe this designer?
 
ID isn't a theory. It is basically an attack on so called weaknesses in evolutionary theory. It doesn't really offer any ideas of its own as they would be subject to scrutiny.
 
One does not have to use science to make a rational argument, nor does one necessarily have to believe in it to say that it is possible.

True, science is a branch of epistemology.

It has, however, demonstrated itself the most reliable source for understanding the nature of things...
 
If Dixie says it is "God" or some other diety then it places the concept outside the scope of science.

He would also be making a obscurum per obscurius argument, attempting to define the obscure by the even more obscure.... but that's a side issue...
 
IHateGovernment said:
ID isn't a theory. It is basically an attack on so called weaknesses in evolutionary theory. It doesn't really offer any ideas of its own as they would be subject to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
A philosophical theory is also a theory. Scientific definitions are not the only usage of that word.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I meant to say scientific theory. I could say I have a theory that AHZ is a polemicist but its not a scientific theory.
Click to expand...
Also questioning and attempting to find holes in a theory is scientific process. That it comes from an "unpalatable" source doesn't change that it can be part of that process and not be a scientific theory.
 
You can use pieces of science to form a theory in the general way. However a scientific theory must follow the scientific process to be a scientific theory. ID doesn't do this and is thus not worthy of being used in a science class. I will say that if the theory is refined more and developed and could become scientific but not yet.

For instance there are some theories that life did not originate locally on this planet but rather came from an extraterrestrial source. Once can explore this theory scientifically but then if you meld it into a larger theory saying aliens engineered our DNA it loses its status as scientific theory.

ID is fine for philsophy class but as for bio class lets just say its not ready for prime time.
 
IHateGovernment said:
You can use pieces of science to form a theory in the general way. However a scientific theory must follow the scientific process to be a scientific theory. ID doesn't do this and is thus not worthy of being used in a science class. I will say that if the theory is refined more and developed and could become scientific but not yet.

For instance there are some theories that life did not originate locally on this planet but rather came from an extraterrestrial source. Once can explore this theory scientifically but then if you meld it into a larger theory saying aliens engineered our DNA it loses its status as scientific theory.

ID is fine for philsophy class but as for bio class lets just say its not ready for prime time.
Click to expand...
I wasn't arguing that it was a Theory. I was saying that it can be science if you consider that part of science is the attempt to disprove a working theory.

Everybody constantly says "it isn't science" yet it can be if it is applied correctly. Instead of attempting to call it a theory, use it in the attempt to disprove the current working theory.
 
One certainly can do that. For instance if one was teaching evolution in a classroom a teacher certainly could legitimately point out claimed flaws in the theory that have been voiced as long as the flaws stand up to scientific scrutiny they would be valid to use.

However you can't point these things out and then say "and thus this shows that there is a designer of life."

That is not even remotely scientific.
 
IHateGovernment said:
One certainly can do that. For instance if one was teaching evolution in a classroom a teacher certainly could legitimately point out claimed flaws in the theory that have been voiced as long as the flaws stand up to scientific scrutiny they would be valid to use.

However you can't point these things out and then say "and thus this shows that there is a designer of life."

That is not even remotely scientific.
Click to expand...
Which, once again, was never my argument. That another might assert that doesn't change that this too can be part of science.
 
Which, once again, was never my argument. That another might assert that doesn't change that this too can be part of science.

Ok Damo but we are just throwing ideas out there. As you know I haven't said that no part of it is scientific. Perhaps you are trying to keep me on my toes about covering all bases in my language.

It is merely a failure of dilligence.
 
"Also questioning and attempting to find holes in a theory is scientific process. That it comes from an "unpalatable" source doesn't change that it can be part of that process and not be a scientific theory."

Utterly incorrect. Attempting to find holes in a Scientific Theory can be a LOGICAL process, not a Scientific process.

Science is a method. ONLY when that method is employed, can something be called "scientific".

DISPROVING predictions which are derived from a hypothesis is a process that is no less valuable than the scientific process, but it is not the scientific process.
 
The Scientific Process, in a nutshell:

-Observation of phenomenon
- Formulation of Hypothesis that both explains said phenomenon, and predicts other observable phenomena
- When predicted phenomena are observed, said predicted phenomena are applied to aforementioned Hypothesis, and said Hypothesis graduates to a theory


...end of story
 
I use orange juice as a component to make a "Screwdriver" at a party. That doesn't mean I'm drinking "Screwdrivers" when I have a glass of orange juice for breakfast.
 
I wasn't arguing that it was a Theory. I was saying that it can be science if you consider that part of science is the attempt to disprove a working theory.

It doesn't do that though. It simply attributes. It notices gaps in the knowledge of ET and states simply 'god did it', though presented in less religious terms by calling it 'designer'.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I wasn't arguing that it was a Theory. I was saying that it can be science if you consider that part of science is the attempt to disprove a working theory.

It doesn't do that though. It simply attributes. It notices gaps in the knowledge of ET and states simply 'god did it', though presented in less religious terms by calling it 'designer'.
Click to expand...
Hence the word "can be" not "is". Parts of it are within the realm of science, hence the affectation "psuedoscience".

I understand your objection, what I am saying is entirely different than what "is". People who attempt to present this as a theory have little understanding of the scientific process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top