No. of Recommendations: 3
First, I can outline how we know ID is science. We know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

No, it doesn't. btresist summed it up nicely in his previous reply. An unknown entity of unknown origin using unknown methods. Where in all that is the scientific method? Where is falsifiability?

I realize the IDists would like to redefine science, but that's not their prerogative. Also, while my lack of knowledge about "philosophy of science eschews demarcation" is not proof, I would be very surprised if such is occurring.

I've read all that same stuff, with the occasional modification, many times. It's obfuscating the question. If it is a science it puts forth a testable hypothesis, and it tells us how to falsify it. You can post Behe and Dembsky and anyone else you like, but if those two points aren't addressed then it's just artful dodging. Those of your links I examined were either engaging in logical fallacies or piling on to their problems. CSI? Suddenly you have to justify this new idea of CSI. As if ID didn't have enough problems just overcoming the testable hypothesis and falsifiability now they have to justify a "new" concept. Reminds me of Star Trek The Next Generation where some hand-wavy technology would cause a problem which they then solved with another hand-wavy (made-up) technology.

You're DOA unless those two fundamental points are addressed. And those are the easy bits. If, for the sake of argument, IDists manage to tick those boxes then the real fun begins.

Science isn't for the easily-disillusioned. It is harsh, rigorous, and unforgiving. If you tick those boxes then you have to demonstrate such things as the "unknown entity" actually exists. Belief is no substitute for data in that regard. "It looks like design" doesn't get you anywhere. And many scientists (actual scientists, not pretenders like Behe) have spent years pursuing beliefs because they couldn't deal with what reality was telling them (both Newton and Einstein did this...two of the greatest minds of all time). The rigors of science overruled even those titans.**

Testable hypothesis and falsifiability. Everything else (at this stage) is just yelling "look over there!". Not falling for it. Answer the question, or it isn't a science.


**Newton was convinced that alchemy was possible (making base metals into gold), and also that light MUST be corpuscular. The latter he obsessed-over for years trying to derive how corpuscles could diffract. Einstein was bothered by elements of quantum mechanics, and even tried to retract some of his own works even as those works were being verified empirically.
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.