R
ricmat
Guest
But evolution doesn’t predict things either - except in the case of fossils “after the fact.” Or in general - “something will evolve into…something else.” Those may be predictions but they are absolutely useless (I’m an engineer, so I’m making that statement from that perspective.)ID does not predict that we find the universe to be any particular way. It is not a theory, because it is not even a hypothesis. It is an observation. The universe appears in some ways to be designed. Ok, so what? From that point we either try to explain why things appear to be designed or give up on science.
But I’m absolutely delighted that you say “…we either try to explain why things appear to be designed…” That shows much more open-mindedness than many others on these threads.
I know of no one who says that if the universe is designed, that we should stop doing science. Could you provide me with a reference? I think this is a straw man totally fabricated argument that gets passed around a lot.At most, ID, if thought to be true, tells science to stop doing science. But scientists don’t want to give up on looking for natural causes because they continue to be successful in making, verifying, falsifying, and adapting hypotheses based on new experiences.
OK - you got me there. When these threads get going, I sometimes forget what the point was. Forgive me! I guess I was trying to clear up some misconceptions about ID.Remember that the point of this thread is to discuss whether ID should be taught in school science classes.
OK - I’ll go along with that.Of course, biology teachers need to talk about the fact that some aspects of nature appear to be designed if they want to teach evolution, because it is this appearance of design in nature that evolutionary theory hopes to explain.
Certainly if something were proved to be designed vs. happening randomly, it would change our investigative strategy, and lead to a better understanding of the thing under examination. Do you disagree?But it would be wrong for a biology teacher to talk about design as a theory since it predicts nothing and guides inquiry in no way whatsoever. It is an observation, a fact, not a theory. Theories are supposed to explain facts. ID is not a theory because it has no explanation for the appearance of design other than the unfalsifiable religious one, “God did it.”
Back to my original “Mars” analogy. I’m not suggesting that it be taught that God designed the Martian prime number generator. I’m merely suggesting that if there is evidence of design, that it be noted. In science class. One is allowed to note observations in science class, even if the observations do not constitute a theory. I’ll assume that you agree with this and continue. Why would you allow the prime number generator to be designated as “designed”, but not the universe in general, if such evidence comes to light. You would not mock someone who wished to investigate the Martian device for design details, but you mock (perhaps not you personally) those who look for design details in the universe. Why do you allow one, and not the other?Well, that’s fine if you want to believe that God did it, but your belief in God is irrelevant to science and should not be taught in science class as if it were a scientific theory.
I suggest that it is because you know in your heart that life (or the universe) is just so complicated that if it was designed that there must in fact God who did it. But…In theory, one need not invoke God for either - and belief in God is a philosophical jump, not a scientific one.
I’m doing a lot of speculating here…so forgive me if I’ve misunderestimated your position