NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems Michael Behe's own Biological Sciences department at Lehigh University has effectively disowned him as far as this issue is concerned, and have flat out called his position on the issue "unscientific".

Emphasis added:

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

That's gotta smart... and of course simply confirms one more time what has been pointed out constantly right here on this board when the issue comes up.

It's true. Intelligent Design is not scientific. It's religious. It can't be tested or proven in any way. Just by what some people call logic. And logic isn't always right.

It makes sense(Intelligent Design), but Improbability Factors can sometimes be quite high. ( :rolleyes: Douglas Adams who?)

Good for them.

However, I can give you the response of the "faithfull"

It is a conspiracy to force God out of everything.
Of course they don't like him proving they are wrong.
It's oppression I tells ya. They just don't like god.


Behe's been discredited a few times but like a good Christian he will keep parroting the same comments.

Behe's been discredited a few times but like a good Christian he will keep parroting the same comments.
That is not a Christian characteristic, it is a human one.

That is not a Christian characteristic, it is a human one.

So Christians are not human? :p

So Christians are not human? :p Damn… foiled!

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.

Well to be called a theory you are supposed to go through a few steps.

Evolution has done that.

ID hasn't even passed as a hypothesis.

I'm sure some fundamentalist Christians think the other way around.

I'm sure some fundamentalist Christians think the other way around.

With out a doubt. In their mind evolution is wrong because it doesn't include God into the equation. As such they will never accept it. Never mind the fact evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.
Pope John Paul II said that evolution was significantly more than "just theory", though he stopped short of taking sides. It is individuals, not "the church", that support ID.

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.

How in the hell is ID a valid theory? They don't even have an answer to the question "how did we become humans on earth?" . The Conversation goes something like this:

Q: how did we become humans on earth?
ID: We were designed by something intelligent.

Q: What something?
ID: We don't know.

Q: Well, what scientific hypothesis do you have?
ID: None, what are you talking about? Isn't it just obvious that evolution isn't probable, and is therefore by our reasoning, impossible?

Q: No, actually, that doesn't even make sense. So what made humans? God?
ID: We didn't say god, who said god, no god here. Maybe aliens or something.

And that's about how it goes.

ID hasn't even passed as a hypothesis.
I wonder how many people here know what are the two things something needs to be in order to be a hypothesis these days. ID doesnt even come close and shouldnt even be put on the same ball park as science. Why does a theory that deals with a metaphysical question try to use something which only deals with the natural world?

How in the hell is ID a valid theory? They don't even have an answer to the question "how did we become humans on earth?" . The Conversation goes something like this:

Q: how did we become humans on earth?
ID: We were designed by something intelligent.

Q: What something?
ID: We don't know.

Q: Well, what scientific hypothesis do you have?
ID: None, what are you talking about? Isn't it just obvious that evolution isn't probable, and is therefore by our reasoning, impossible?

Q: No, actually, that doesn't even make sense. So what made humans? God?
ID: We didn't say god, who said god, no god here. Maybe aliens or something.

And that's about how it goes.

Well who the hell knows, we could have evolved from some stupid germ, or we could've been created by some huge god like thing/alien that decided it was bored on a Saturday night.

I found this article (http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178&goto=nextoldest) recently, and read through the flowery language eagerly hoping that these "testable hypotheses" proposed by ID would be revealed. No such luck. It's amazing how much someone can write about something while saying nothing about it.

I found this article (http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178&goto=nextoldest) recently, and read through the flowery language eagerly hoping that these "testable hypotheses" proposed by ID would be revealed. No such luck. It's amazing how much someone can write about something while saying nothing about it.

Wait, wtf? I just read the first line and can already tell what you mean.

Touche.

Wait, wtf? I just read the first line and can already tell what you mean.

Touche.
The second paragraph alone is a classic of meaningless technobabble. :eek:

Each and every concrete and meticulous study conducted in any scientific discipline and the systematic delineation of the very principles and laws governing each field of research, as well as the precise process of scientific inquiry itself, all testify eloquently to the intelligibility of the design studied by the scientific method of investigation.


HAHAHAHA!

All of the people who say that ID is a valid scientific theory are either a) Christians who hate being excluded or b) Just plain not scientists.

All of the people who say that ID is a valid scientific theory are either a) Christians who hate being excluded or b) Just plain not scientists.

Aren't scientists supposed to be working at Area 51 and not playing on the internet?

I wonder how many people here know what are the two things something needs to be in order to be a hypothesis these days. ID doesnt even come close and shouldnt even be put on the same ball park as science. Why does a theory that deals with a metaphysical question try to use something which only deals with the natural world?
I do. It must be testable and falsifiable. ID meets neither of those requirements, relegating it to a belief.

What I find alarming about ID is that it often takes the side of the materialist against the idealist. Isn't that rather inimical to religion, which is supposed to be a spiritual practice?

Aren't scientists supposed to be working at Area 51 and not playing on the internet?

Maybe we just like to goof off, smartass.

(Area 51 is a bit too classified for me, anyways.)

I do. It must be testable and falsifiable. ID meets neither of those requirements, relegating it to a belief.

Yep

Each and every concrete and meticulous study conducted in any scientific discipline and the systematic delineation of the very principles and laws governing each field of research, as well as the precise process of scientific inquiry itself, all testify eloquently to the intelligibility of the design studied by the scientific method of investigation.
Sounds like something I'd put in an essay to fill it out a bit...

the pure energy of nuclear fusion radiating from the sunsince when was nuclear fusion tangible? I thought light, neutrinos, and some solar wind were radiating from the sun

With out a doubt. In their mind evolution is wrong because it doesn't include God into the equation. As such they will never accept it. Never mind the fact evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I beg to differ. Evolutional theory, by its very definition of the origins of life, sets out to prove there was no God involved in the existence of the world. That is the reason most conservatives wish to ensure that while evolution can be taught as scientific theory, it not be force fed to all as the only possible way that life could have occurred on earth.

I would never seek to stamp out scientific education. Just don't call me blindly ignorant if I choose to believe that humans were created as-is, with no predecessor. I still say it's easier for a supreme being to breathe life into clay than for a single-celled entity to miraculously, through aeons of mutation, become--ME.

I beg to differ. Evolutional theory, by its very definition of the origins of life, sets out to prove there was no God involved in the existence of the world. That is the reason most conservatives wish to ensure that while evolution can be taught as scientific theory, it not be force fed to all as the only possible way that life could have occurred on earth.

I would never seek to stamp out scientific education. Just don't call me blindly ignorant if I choose to believe that humans were created as-is, with no predecessor. I still say it's easier for a supreme being to breathe life into clay than for a single-celled entity to miraculously, through aeons of mutation, to become--ME.

I find it slightly ironic that you define evolution as the miracle rather than God divinely creating life from mud.

I beg to differ. Evolutional theory, by its very definition of the origins of life, sets out to prove there was no God involved in the existence of the world.

You are wrong. Evolution is not about abiogenesis. It is not about how life originally happened on earth, but how it developed once there was life.

You are wrong. Evolution is not about abiogenesis. It is not about how life originally happened on earth, but how it developed once there was life.


I'll play. What I really meant when I said, evolution excludes God is that it desires to show that humans did not originate as exclusively created by a "god" but evolved from lower orders.

How did "life" originate then?

I find it slightly ironic that you define evolution as the miracle rather than God divinely creating life from mud.

Call it subtle irony.

I'll play. What I really meant when I said, evolution excludes God is that it desires to show that humans did not originate as exclusively created by a "god" but evolved from lower orders.

How did "life" originate then?

*sigh* As has been repeated as nauseum previously in these debates. Evolution (as with all scientific theories) does not take any stance on the existance of God. It seeks to explain biodiversity through natural processes. Thus far it has been incredibly successful in doing so. Just because its explainations do not include God. It does not mean that it actively goes about disproving Gods involvement.

When i try to explain to someone why i like Soundgarden I dont even mention The Beatles. This does not give any indication of my stance on The Beatles. Nor does it try to explain if the Beatles had any influence on Soundgarden.

Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life from non-living matter. I currently dont accept any of the current hypotheses as able to fully stand up to critique. However to say that God created life because we dont know with certainty how life can be explained by Abiogenesis is simply playing the 'God-of-Gaps' game.

Agreed.

Now, just for those that might still have a once of doubt about this, read carefully: ID is not science.

Wait, maybe you didn't quite get that: ID is not science.

If you are still unsure about this, let me re-phrase:

There Is Nothing Scientific About ID.

And Catholic Forum: ... that's not even worth replying too.

*sigh* As has been repeated as nauseum previously in these debates. Evolution (as with all scientific theories) does not take any stance on the existance of God. It seeks to explain biodiversity through natural processes. Thus far it has been incredibly successful in doing so. Just because its explainations do not include God. It does not mean that it actively goes about disproving Gods involvement.

When i try to explain to someone why i like Soundgarden I dont even mention The Beatles. This does not give any indication of my stance on The Beatles. Nor does it try to explain if the Beatles had any influence on Soundgarden.

Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life from non-living matter. I currently dont accept any of the current hypotheses as able to fully stand up to critique. However to say that God created life because we dont know with certainty how life can be explained by Abiogenesis is simply playing the 'God-of-Gaps' game.


Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.

I don't say God created life because we don't know how life was created. I say God created life because God says he did. Now that opens up the whole realm of belief vs. proof. Yes we've been there in many threads.

I'll check back tomorrow on the rest, I've got to do some actual work now.

Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.

I don't say God created life because we don't know how life was created. I say God created life because God says he did. Now that opens up the whole realm of belief vs. proof. Yes we've been there in many threads.

I'll check back tomorrow on the rest, I've got to do some actual work now.

If we evolved from lower forms it excludes God creating us instantly in our current forms. However evolution does not actively seek to destroy to influence of God in biology. If it disproves God's influence then it is incidental not intentional. If the scientific community all of a sudden finds a whole heap of vaible and valid evidence that evolution is false then the theory would be disgarded.

You say you belief God created life because God said he did? But did he? The bible says he did. The bible was written by men. I think i can fairly safely say tht you havent heard God personally tell you that he create life. Once i said i could beat up Mike Tyson... Certainly doesnt mean it's true. And I have an advantage over God in the fact that my influences on the world around me are easliy detected, and thus i'm much easier to demonstrate my existance. And also i have several witnesses to attest to my little Tyson jest.

Now if you just wish to believe in ID because you have faith then thats fine. But you'd have to agree that presenting ID as a scientific theory is not appropriate.

Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.

I don't say God created life because we don't know how life was created. I say God created life because God says he did. Now that opens up the whole realm of belief vs. proof. Yes we've been there in many threads.

I'll check back tomorrow on the rest, I've got to do some actual work now.

Not necessarily. It just says that god didn't create man by snipping his fingers, but may have used subtler methods.
Evolution at no point excludes the possibility that god set everything in motion, but it does show that if he did, he did so on a molecular basis rather than putting two adults of every species on a ready-formed earth.

Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.

Umm..why?

Couldnt have God simply created a prototype, and watched that, and all of his creations evolve?

I don't say God created life because we don't know how life was created. I say God created life because God says he did.

Untrue.
Man says God says he did.
We cant know the truth of that, becuase those who gave us this news..are long dead, and are no longer around to scrutinize.
Theres so much evidence to show that Homo erectus evolved from earlier models...why is it so hard to swallow?

Not necessarily. It just says that god didn't create man by snipping his fingers, but may have used subtler methods.
Evolution at no point excludes the possibility that god set everything in motion, but it does show that if he did, he did so on a molecular basis rather than putting two adults of every species on a ready-formed earth.

You just supported ID, dude.

You just supported ID, dude.

No, I didn't.
I said evolution is not making any claims into the supernatural. So, if it all happened by accident but with a pattern or if there really is some big guy with a beard behind it all is NOT a question evolution concerns itself with. It's a spiritual question, not a scientific one, and it should be treated as such.

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.

That's the most non-comittal post I've ever seen :rolleyes:

Both intelligent design and evolution are valid theories, however, one is supported by the church, one is supported by the scientific community. People just believe one theory over another because they support one side over the other.
Only if you are lazy on how you apply the word "theory"
In the scientific community it is MUCH more then a guess

ID does NOT meet the requirements for a SCIENTIFIC theory
IT is not an can not be resoned out using the scientific method

So what have we learned today kids?

ID doesnt meet the requirements to be considered a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

ID is a theology being paraded as science.

ID is perfectly acceptable if considered as a philospohy based on faith. But not within the realms of science


Think that sums it up reasonably doesnt it?

So what have we learned today kids?

ID doesnt meet the requirements to be considered a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

ID is a theology being paraded as science.

ID is perfectly acceptable if considered as a philospohy based on faith. But not within the realms of science


Think that sums it up reasonably doesnt it?
Yup I think you got the just of it :)

Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.

I don't say God created life because we don't know how life was created. I say God created life because God says he did. Now that opens up the whole realm of belief vs. proof. Yes we've been there in many threads.

I'll check back tomorrow on the rest, I've got to do some actual work now.

When did god tell you this?

Please don't say "The Bible", because the Bible is divided into two parts. Part one is a series of books blatantly plagiarized from "pagan" sources and part two is about some guy who had really great ideas but thought he was the son of a deity.

Besides which, that book has been in the guiding hands of man for centuries. So even if it were divine to begin with (which it is not), it has been irreovcably changed by the manifestly non-divine hands of man.

I think The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) has the best take on this. Note to ID proponents: this is what you sound like:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

.. it goes on. See the link for the full story.

I think The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) has the best take on this. Note to ID proponents: this is what you sound like:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

.. it goes on. See the link for the full story.


I was going to post that lol quality

Yup I think you got the just of it :)

Yay for me :D Do I get a cookie?

I have to add the always quality landover baptist explination of evolution

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/evolution1.gif

This is why Pastafarianism is the official religion of Samsonica. See http://www.venganza.org/ for persuasive evidence that the universe was created following the tenets of Intelligent Design... by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well who the hell knows, we could have evolved from some stupid germ, or we could've been created by some huge god like thing/alien that decided it was bored on a Saturday night.

Or maybe we're the love children of those aliens......

Think about it.

Aren't scientists supposed to be working at Area 51 and not playing on the internet?

Burn.

Dr. Phallus kicked my ass at Age of Empires(damn xenobiologists)!.

Saying man evolved from lower orders certainly excludes God from having created man.
Actually, it doesn't. It just excludes him from having created them fully-formed in their current form.

I beg to differ. Evolutional theory, by its very definition of the origins of life, sets out to prove there was no God involved in the existence of the world. That is the reason most conservatives wish to ensure that while evolution can be taught as scientific theory, it not be force fed to all as the only possible way that life could have occurred on earth.

I would never seek to stamp out scientific education. Just don't call me blindly ignorant if I choose to believe that humans were created as-is, with no predecessor. I still say it's easier for a supreme being to breathe life into clay than for a single-celled entity to miraculously, through aeons of mutation, become--ME.

Actually, it'd be much easier for God. You know, evolutioin is like Gods secretary. It takes care of things while he's busy (that nebula won't form itself, you know).

You just supported ID, dude.

No he didn't, dude. He said that God helped the first molecules to come together to create micrscopic life, then set life on Earth to spin. ID says that something just created us as we are today. Dude.

ID operates on the same principle on which every conspiracy theory does: that unanswered questions are actually statements of fact.

I have to add the always quality landover baptist explination of evolution

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0301/evolution1.gif

So you can suck Gods dick, but you can't take it up the ass? Wow. Perverts.

Well who the hell knows, we could have evolved from some stupid germ, or we could've been created by some huge god like thing/alien that decided it was bored on a Saturday night.

Nope...definitely an amoeba or less than an amoeba. That's how we evolved.

Aren't scientists supposed to be working at Area 51 and not playing on the internet?

No...there is no Area 51.

And if there was I wouldn't be there.


Stop asking questions!

I beg to differ. Evolutional theory, by its very definition of the origins of life, sets out to prove there was no God involved in the existence of the world. That is the reason most conservatives wish to ensure that while evolution can be taught as scientific theory, it not be force fed to all as the only possible way that life could have occurred on earth.

I would never seek to stamp out scientific education. Just don't call me blindly ignorant if I choose to believe that humans were created as-is, with no predecessor. I still say it's easier for a supreme being to breathe life into clay than for a single-celled entity to miraculously, through aeons of mutation, become--ME.

But you are blindly ignorant if you thin humans have no predecessor. The fossil record supports several homonids prior to the emergence of homo sapien sapiens. To ignore that is to be blindly ignorant.

I agree that ID is not a scientific theory, but isnt it a bit wrong to say it isnt Science? From my understanding (which may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me) Science is about explaining how the world works. Now pretend for a moment that ID is correct. Isnt it therefore science as it does explain how the world works? Or is science limited to a set of standards which have to be logical and completely understood? In other words, even if ID is completely correct, or even Intelligent Falling, its not science because it doesnt fit these magical rules and standards.

(note, when i originally heard and read about ID, it was evolution/creation/whatever, just with an intelligent Designer behind the process, that what i mean when i say ID)

I agree that ID is not a scientific theory, but isnt it a bit wrong to say it isnt Science? From my understanding (which may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me) Science is about explaining how the world works. Now pretend for a moment that ID is correct. Isnt it therefore science as it does explain how the world works? Or is science limited to a set of standards which have to be logical and completely understood? In other words, even if ID is completely correct, or even Intelligent Falling, its not science because it doesnt fit these magical rules and standards.

(note, when i originally heard and read about ID, it was evolution/creation/whatever, just with an intelligent Designer behind the process, that what i mean when i say ID)
No Science is a process to decipher the OBSERVABLE reality
If it takes in account non observable it is NON scientific

Science is a process for sorting through datum and eliminating wrong theories nothing more.

I agree that ID is not a scientific theory, but isnt it a bit wrong to say it isnt Science? From my understanding (which may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me) Science is about explaining how the world works. Now pretend for a moment that ID is correct. Isnt it therefore science as it does explain how the world works? Or is science limited to a set of standards which have to be logical and completely understood? In other words, even if ID is completely correct, or even Intelligent Falling, its not science because it doesnt fit these magical rules and standards.

(note, when i originally heard and read about ID, it was evolution/creation/whatever, just with an intelligent Designer behind the process, that what i mean when i say ID)

Science's mandate is to disprove what is false and use their observations to theorize about what is true.

It does that through application of the scientific method.

I agree that ID is not a scientific theory, but isnt it a bit wrong to say it isnt Science? From my understanding (which may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me) Science is about explaining how the world works. Now pretend for a moment that ID is correct. Isnt it therefore science as it does explain how the world works? Or is science limited to a set of standards which have to be logical and completely understood? In other words, even if ID is completely correct, or even Intelligent Falling, its not science because it doesnt fit these magical rules and standards.

(note, when i originally heard and read about ID, it was evolution/creation/whatever, just with an intelligent Designer behind the process, that what i mean when i say ID)

Science is the study of the natural universe to determine what is most likely truth. It follows the scientific method, such as creating testable and fallsifiable hypotheses. Since ID comes up with an explanation of nature WITHOUT having a testable of fallsifiable hypothesis, and as ID is independant of any discernable data or observation it is not science.

ID certainly doesnt fit the rules of science. However they are certainly not "magical rules and standards" as you suggest. They merely require that the scientific process follows rational thoughts and doesnt introduce unneeded, unproven, undetectable, and unfalsifiable factors. ID explains how biodiversity could occur. But it does not provide any predictions on how it could be scientifically tested.

ID is not testable, it is not based on observed data, and does not fit the requirements of the scientific method. Bottom Line: ID is not science.

Science is the study of the natural universe to find out truth. It follows the scientific method, such as creating testable and fallsifiable hypotheses. Since ID comes up with an explanation of nature WITHOUT having a testable of fallsifiable hypothesis, and as ID is independant of any discernable data or observation it is not science.

ID certainly doesnt fit the rules of science. However they are certainly not "magical rules and standards" as you suggest. They merely require that the scientific process follows rational thoughts and doesnt introduce unneeded, unproven, undetectable, and unfalsifiable factors. ID explains how biodiversity could occur. But it does not provide any predictions on how it could be scientifically proven.

ID is not testable, it is not based on observed data, and does not fit the requirements of the scientific method. Bottom Line: ID is not science.

Science is not meant to give us truth (either objective or subjective). Its job is to filter out what is FALSE so that we have a better idea of how to go about finding out what is true.

Science is not meant to give us truth (either objective or subjective). Its job is to filter out what is FALSE so that we have a better idea of how to go about finding out what is true.

Maybe i was mistaken. I thought the purpose of science was to work towards finding truth, regardless of whether finding truth is, in reality, possible or not.

Kind of like equating truth with a mathematical asymptote and science is the curve that tends towards it but can never fully reach it.

Or maybe its late where i am and i'm talking nonsense. Upon revision of what I typed I did word it badly. Hopefully the above edit is more appropriate.

Maybe i was mistaken. I thought the purpose of science was to work towards finding truth, regardless of whether finding truth is, in reality, possible or not.

Kind of like equating truth with a mathematical asymptote and science is the curve that tends towards it but can never fully reach it.

Or maybe its late where i am and i'm talking nonsense. Upon revision of what I typed I did word it badly. Hopefully the above edit is more appropriate.

I think finding the truth is for philosophy, not for science.
Science is about finding facts, not truths.

There are always more questions, never enough answers...

Ok, so science filters out the false, but doesnt necessarily find the truth.

So if the truth cant be observed, science will never find it?

One more question, what about all that stuff in science that we cant really observe and can only hazard educated guesses at, like what energy is (like what is it), light (is it a particle or a wave, i say a particle going in a wave :P) and gravity (why? and how do we know for sure there is a gravitational force between myself and the keyboard, sure we can see it on the large scale, but how do we know for sure) and finally the atom... we cant observe stuff on the atomic level... i guess what im saying is it seems there is a bit of leeway in what is observable/rational/logical


ps thanks for the response to my question

I think finding the truth is for philosophy, not for science.
Science is about finding facts, not truths.

Agreed. I think i just worded all that rather poorly.

There are always more questions, never enough answers...

Ok, so science filters out the false, but doesnt necessarily find the truth.

So if the truth cant be observed, science will never find it?

One more question, what about all that stuff in science that we cant really observe and can only hazard educated guesses at, like what energy is (like what is it), light (is it a particle or a wave, i say a particle going in a wave :P) and gravity (why? and how do we know for sure there is a gravitational force between myself and the keyboard, sure we can see it on the large scale, but how do we know for sure) and finally the atom... we cant observe stuff on the atomic level... i guess what im saying is it seems there is a bit of leeway in what is observable/rational/logical


ps thanks for the response to my question


That's what scientific theories are for. Gravity - same as evolution - is a theory. It hasn't been proven, because we don't yet have the means to prove it. If it can ever be proven, that is. The fact that the ball when dropped will fall to the floor 400 times is evidence to support the theory of gravity, it doesn't prove anything. After all, it doesn't allow the certainty that the ball will fall when dropped the 401st time, but scientists say that it is highly likely that it will.

There are always more questions, never enough answers...

Ok, so science filters out the false, but doesnt necessarily find the truth.

So if the truth cant be observed, science will never find it?

One more question, what about all that stuff in science that we cant really observe and can only hazard educated guesses at, like what energy is (like what is it), light (is it a particle or a wave, i say a particle going in a wave :P) and gravity (why? and how do we know for sure there is a gravitational force between myself and the keyboard, sure we can see it on the large scale, but how do we know for sure) and finally the atom... we cant observe stuff on the atomic level... i guess what im saying is it seems there is a bit of leeway in what is observable/rational/logical


ps thanks for the response to my question

Light is both a particle AND a wave, in that it acts like both.

There are always more questions, never enough answers...

Ok, so science filters out the false, but doesnt necessarily find the truth.

So if the truth cant be observed, science will never find it?

One more question, what about all that stuff in science that we cant really observe and can only hazard educated guesses at, like what energy is (like what is it), light (is it a particle or a wave, i say a particle going in a wave :P) and gravity (why? and how do we know for sure there is a gravitational force between myself and the keyboard, sure we can see it on the large scale, but how do we know for sure) and finally the atom... we cant observe stuff on the atomic level... i guess what im saying is it seems there is a bit of leeway in what is observable/rational/logical


ps thanks for the response to my question

Science will never give us an absolute truth. But it tells us what is most likely truth.

The things you mention we can make testable predictions about. If those predictions are upheld then it is highly likely that the hypotheses are correct. Even if we cant say that we can call them absolute truth. Gravity tells us that due to gravitation if we drop a ball it will accelerate towards the earth at 9.8 metres per second per second. Thus far all our observations have supported this. It doesnt prove that our theory of gravity is true. But it tells us that it is incredibly probable to be true.

Back on topic. Intelligent Design is unable to make any such predictions and hypotheses. And thats why it is unscientific. It just falls back on "God just did it that way".

Back on topic. Intelligent Design is unable to make any such predictions and hypotheses. And thats why it is unscientific. It just falls back on "God just did it that way".

Which is ok if your teach it in a religous education class. But to claim that it is a scientific theory and to offer it as an alternative to evolution is plain wrong.
You could say that intelligent design is one way to interpret evolution inasmuch as it fills the gaps and offers speculative explanations, but it is in no way a scientific theory that can compete with evolution.

Back on topic. Intelligent Design is unable to make any such predictions and hypotheses. And thats why it is unscientific.
I'm not going to dispute that Intelligent Design cannot make predictions and hypotheses, but I'm questioning word choice. I think "unscientific" is a bit misused or, at least, it could be easily misunderstood.

I mean, Intelligent Design is very much involving science. It's a whole system of how to interpret scientific data. In that sense, one might be able to call it "scientific", in that it deals with science, since the Intelligent Design system of interpretation is fashioned with science almost strictly its motivation. Granted, it's "unscientific" in that it does not exude characteristics of scientific experimentation (predictions, hypotheses, etc.) But, I'm not sure that make it warrants the title of "unscientific".

Anyway, regardless of whether it's appropriate, I think that it's a large part of what IDers have trouble with the scientific community. I think the Evolution-ID debate would be incredibly easy to solve if there were more accurate explanation (non-condescending) of the difficulty (impossibility even) of testing ID, and the explanation that Evolution =/= Atheism. I think it's largely a problem of verbiage.

Just my 2 cents worth.