The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

Damocles said:
While language usage may let the layman misapply the term, it doesn't change what is.

If it is not testable, it will never reach the status of Scientific Theory. Nothing will.

This should not be taught in science because it is not something that can be tested using the scientific method. (Which doesn't change even if the dictionary says that there is such a thing as the "science of art". Just because some people use it as an idiomatic expression doesn't change what the scientific method is or how it applies. BTW - Art shouldn't be taught in science class either, even if people use the words "science of art" together.)
Click to expand...
Here's another definition, not exactly a layman's persepctive:
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. You can find out more about the scientific method here.

Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
 
Solitary said:
Disproving is exactly what science does. Proving something is almost impossible in science, unless you provide such narrow parameters that you have a very select example. And even then, unless you can account for all possible variables, you cannot prove something.
Click to expand...

That depends. In science, when it comes to proof we deal with probabilities. Because all science is tentative then nothing in science can be proven with absolute certainty. We can prove things to differing degrees of probability. Evolutionary theory has undergone 150 years of rigerous testing. It's proofs have a high probability of being correct. ID has never been tested and thus has a low probability of being correct from the point of view of science.
 
Dixie said:
It is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Science is also incomplete knowledge. You, like many arrogant humans, assume that what science currently knows and understands, is not only empirical, but all there is to know. If something doesn't conform to what science currently understands and knows, well, it's simply "not science" in your opinion. If something seems to contradict what science currently knows or understands, you claim it has been "refuted by science!"

This closed-minded and asinine approach, is completely contradictory to legitimate scientific theory. Yet, that doesn't seem to matter to you, as long as you can point to a peer review or something published in a pinhead science journal, that's all that matters. Science constantly continues to ask questions, it doesn't conclude, it doesn't disprove or prove anything.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate your answer.

It does demonstrate what we have been arguing here. That you have a differant definition of science than what scientist use.

You failed to mention in your first statement that about the description of phenomena that science only addresses natural phenomena of the physical world.

You also are not quite correct when you say science is incomplete knowledge. That's a "Captian Obvious" statement as it is true of any philosophy or system of knowledge. You would have been spot on correct if you had said "Science it tentative knowledge. There's a huge differance between saying "My knowledge is incomplete" and saying "I could be wrong." This is what makes science unique from other philosophies. It is always tentative. You could be wrong.

So this is our basis of disagreement with you. You have a view of what science is, that is not held by the mainstream of science. One could claim that you are attempting to change what is science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top