3 ms·

You should read this. Really read it (like the whole thing): http://www.discovery.org/a/2834 http://www.discovery.org/a/2834 (warning: Stephen Meyer is several

You should read this. Really read it (like the whole thing): http://www.discovery.org/a/2834 http://www.discovery.org/a/2834 (warning: Stephen Meyer is several notches up the scale of intellectual acuity than Ham) In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude both intelligent design and 'descent from common ancestor'. [And, in the case of inclusion will also bring in a lot of other non-sensical theories].

lisper 13y ago
You have completely missed the point. The debate is not (or at least should not be) about what is and is not science. That is merely quibbling over terminology. The debate is (or should be) over the process one uses to arrive at the truth. Empirically, if you use experiment as your arbiter of truth, you are led to make VASTLY more accurate predictions about the world, and hence obtain vastly more power to control the world, than any other criterion that man has yet managed to devise (and in particular, you do better than using any holy text as your arbiter of truth). It doesn't matter if intelligent design is or is not science. What matters is that when you put ID or YEC to experimental test, it fails. When you put Darwinian evolution to experimental test, it succeeds. Whether or not that makes evolution "true" is a debate over the meaning of the word "true", not the meaning of the word "science." You can choose to believe that the universe is borne on the back of a turtle. You can even call that science if you like. But if you put your turtle cosmology to experimental test, I will bet you any amount of money you care to wager that your predictions will be wrong. In the long run, I will win and you will lose. THAT is what matters.
- yoduddde 13y ago
  That's not true. ID is based on forensic science and information science. I know that this debate wasn't about what is or isn't science but I think that, in the larger picture, it definitely is. Evolution is dogma and it isn't to be challenged. Let anyone who does so be considered anathema (blasphemous even!). [Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).
lutusp 13y ago
> In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude both intelligent design and 'descent from common ancestor'. No, not if you actually understand science. Science requires empirically derived evidence and falsifiability (or tests against reality -- meaning if reality disagrees, the theory must be discarded). Descent from a common ancestor passes the above test, because there is copious empirical fossil evidence supporting that conclusion as well as present-day tests of evolution and natural selection, derived from both biology and computer science. The idea also could easily be falsified by new empirical evidence, if any existed. Intelligent design requires the intervention of a supernatural agency, it is therefore not empirical, not falsifiable, therefore it's not science. Very simple -- one is science, the other isn't.
- yoduddde 13y ago
  That's truly an ignorant position to take. Do you think you are repeating anything that I haven't heard? Why don't you actually read the essay? That's the thing about you dogmatists-- you don't even bother to read any articles which might cause you to challenge your worldview. That's so cowardly in my opinion. If you read the essay, all of your points are considered (and refuted). I'm not going to do the work for you, but if you have the courage, you can do it for yourself, pussy!

lisper 13y ago

You have completely missed the point. The debate is not (or at least should not be) about what is and is not science. That is merely quibbling over terminology. The debate is (or should be) over the process one uses to arrive at the truth. Empirically, if you use experiment as your arbiter of truth, you are led to make VASTLY more accurate predictions about the world, and hence obtain vastly more power to control the world, than any other criterion that man has yet managed to devise (and in particular, you do better than using any holy text as your arbiter of truth). It doesn't matter if intelligent design is or is not science. What matters is that when you put ID or YEC to experimental test, it fails. When you put Darwinian evolution to experimental test, it succeeds. Whether or not that makes evolution "true" is a debate over the meaning of the word "true", not the meaning of the word "science." You can choose to believe that the universe is borne on the back of a turtle. You can even call that science if you like. But if you put your turtle cosmology to experimental test, I will bet you any amount of money you care to wager that your predictions will be wrong. In the long run, I will win and you will lose. THAT is what matters.

yoduddde 13y ago
That's not true. ID is based on forensic science and information science. I know that this debate wasn't about what is or isn't science but I think that, in the larger picture, it definitely is. Evolution is dogma and it isn't to be challenged. Let anyone who does so be considered anathema (blasphemous even!). [Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).

lutusp 13y ago

> In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude both intelligent design and 'descent from common ancestor'. No, not if you actually understand science. Science requires empirically derived evidence and falsifiability (or tests against reality -- meaning if reality disagrees, the theory must be discarded). Descent from a common ancestor passes the above test, because there is copious empirical fossil evidence supporting that conclusion as well as present-day tests of evolution and natural selection, derived from both biology and computer science. The idea also could easily be falsified by new empirical evidence, if any existed. Intelligent design requires the intervention of a supernatural agency, it is therefore not empirical, not falsifiable, therefore it's not science. Very simple -- one is science, the other isn't.

yoduddde 13y ago
That's truly an ignorant position to take. Do you think you are repeating anything that I haven't heard? Why don't you actually read the essay? That's the thing about you dogmatists-- you don't even bother to read any articles which might cause you to challenge your worldview. That's so cowardly in my opinion. If you read the essay, all of your points are considered (and refuted). I'm not going to do the work for you, but if you have the courage, you can do it for yourself, pussy!