3 ms·
It's not really a meta-argument. It's just saying the basic requirements. If you are challenging a strongly supported scientific theory but have no alternative
by dwaltrip 9y ago
It's not really a meta-argument. It's just saying the basic requirements. If you are challenging a strongly supported scientific theory but have no alternative theory, then you are going to have a hard time.
Even a religious theory like intelligent design or creationism should produce abundant physical evidence that could be assessed. And they should attempt to integrate with all neighboring scientific fields of study (geology, anthropology, genetics, etc). But this doesn't seem to happen.
- whatshisface 9y agoIntelligent design is not specific enough. The equivalent would be saying "random processes" instead of mutation+selection+heredity. Still, with a specific theory of evolution that's supported we can climb back up and say that "random processes" are probably what happened - not because it makes predictions, but because it is a trait of a theory that does make predictions. Likewise for ID, which is a property shared between many theories which actually do make predictions. Successful predictions? Maybe not but they do count as hypotheses. (building on the point that nobody in practice actually supports ID, but instead supports a more specific genesis story that happens to fall under ID.)