[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[jwu]

In order to qualify as scientific, an idea/hypothesis must provide at least two things:

• It must make specific, testable predictions about what should be found if the hypothesis is correct[/*:m:30f23]
• It must be falsifiable, i.e. it must make specific, testable predictions about what should not be found if the hypothesis is correct. Such finds - if they occur - would falsify the hypothesis.[/*:m:30f23]

So, what testable predictions does ID make? And even more importantly, what would falsify ID?

 

[John]

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observationand 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.

Observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon such as the laws of gravity, the structure of the cell, or chemical reactions. "Origins science," on the other hand, deals with questions of an unobservable nature: hypotheses about events which only occurred once by their very nature, and which therefore cannot be repeated, tested, or observed.


Evolution is not a observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon, hence it is not science.

i am at school now but i will compile a list of predictions when i get home for your viewing plesure.

 

[jwu]

Observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon such as the laws of gravity, the structure of the cell, or chemical reactions. "Origins science," on the other hand, deals with questions of an unobservable nature: hypotheses about events which only occurred once by their very nature, and which therefore cannot be repeated, tested, or observed.


Evolution is not a observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon, hence it is not science.

You're falsely assuming that observation only includes direct observation. Indirect observation is perfectly valid in science as well.

Otherwise you'd be saying that e.g. particle physics is not science either, as it does not directly observe many particles, but only the traces which they leave behind.

Astrophysics does not need to repeat the formation of stars in a lab to make scientific theories about how they form either.

Respectively, regarding the theory of evolution, there are genetic markers which indicate whether its predictions are accurate.

 

[Jayls5]

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observationand 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.

Observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon such as the laws of gravity, the structure of the cell, or chemical reactions. "Origins science," on the other hand, deals with questions of an unobservable nature: hypotheses about events which only occurred once by their very nature, and which therefore cannot be repeated, tested, or observed.


Evolution is not a observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon, hence it is not science.

i am at school now but i will compile a list of predictions when i get home for your viewing plesure.

You may have missed the thread title. We're asking about intelligent design and not evolution.

 

[Deep Thought]

So according to your definition of science, ID could never be considered science.

 

[freeway]

jay said:

You may have missed the thread title. We're asking about intelligent design and not evolution

yes we, you are not supposed to be talkin about evolution in this thread, but in your theory of evolution you say that science proves it, but in reality it does no more than you claim ID does not.

jwu says;
So, what testable predictions does ID make? And even more importantly, what would falsify ID

ID makes the same claim as science does, it takes a look at the evidence and tries to find a conclusion fact fits the evidence instead of going off on some lame brain idea.. yes just like science it take some leaps of faith. In reality we can't go back to the beginning and see the process, but we have the same evidence its just our interpretation of it make the difference. We Christian prefer to put our "faith" in the God of the universe. Where as you put your "faith" in the universe.

what would falsify ID? asks jwu

what to you would falsify ID, that does not falsify main stream science of evolution, which is based on falsified evidence.

 

[Jayls5]

jay said:

You may have missed the thread title. We're asking about intelligent design and not evolution

yes we, you are not supposed to be talkin about evolution in this thread, but in your theory of evolution you say that science proves it, but in reality it does no more than you claim ID does not.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you gather your thoughts a bit better please?

 

[Ignatz]

ID is un-falsifiable, therefore, it is not science.
period.

 

[jwu]

yes we, you are not supposed to be talkin about evolution in this thread, but in your theory of evolution you say that science proves it, but in reality it does no more than you claim ID does not.

Then make your own thread about it.

ID makes the same claim as science does, it takes a look at the evidence and tries to find a conclusion fact fits the evidence instead of going off on some lame brain idea.. yes just like science it take some leaps of faith. In reality we can't go back to the beginning and see the process, but we have the same evidence its just our interpretation of it make the difference. We Christian prefer to put our "faith" in the God of the universe. Where as you put your "faith" in the universe.

Science however makes predictions about things that should be found which haven't yet been looked for, and what most definitely not should be found (e.g. cambrian bunnies). That's an absolutely essential part of science.

If ID is science, then it should make such predictions as well. Does it?

hat to you would falsify ID, that does not falsify main stream science of evolution, which is based on falsified evidence.

Apparently you hint that any falsification of ID would also falsify evolution. Well...then by all means, if you know what would falsify both of them, tell me! What is it?

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information,[...]

What would be negative evidence, i.e. falsification?

[...] the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Neither of these are evidence for ID. Even if the ToE were utterly falsified sometime, ID is not a default fall back position - that'd be a false dichotomy. It has to stand on its own positive evidence.

 

[Ignatz]

Neither of these are evidence for ID. Even if the ToE were utterly falsified sometime, ID is not a default fall back position - that'd be a false dichotomy. It has to stand on its own positive evidence.[/quote]

Excellent point. All id-ists and creationists should take this to heart.

Just because I can prove that I wasn't the one who left the toilet seat up, it is not therefore evidence that my sister did.