Since we’ve gone there – a scientific theory must both say something useful and be falsifiable. Without the latter it is classed as unscientific under the heading “not even wrong”.
Good question. (And by the way, I’m not talking about evolution vs. ID, but only *fine-tuning *arguments for ID). Indeed, this is a key aspect of scientific theory, and it appears – although I’m no expert – that Intelligent Design is untestable. Thus, whether ID is science depends on the very interesting question of how we define “science”.
Yes, but things under the heading “not even wrong” could in fact be true. See my comment on theories of history above.
You are correct about String Theory and incorrect about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics predicts that the computer on which you are reading this will work - any reasonably complex integrated circuit relies on QM for its correct operation.
There are all kinds of truths, including mathematics and history, that are outside the domain of natural science, i.e. they can’t be tested using the scientific method. If you want to say that ID is science then it must be open to the scientific method.
I’ve got no agenda here. The thing that made me bring this up at all was the tone of the post I was responding to:There are all kinds of truths, including mathematics and history, that are outside the domain of natural science, i.e. they can’t be tested using the scientific method. If you want to say that ID is science then it must be open to the scientific method.
You could always put it into another discipline, or even invent one specially. Why particularly do you want to call it scientific?
Certainly, it is absurd to relegate ID to religious education (and just as absurd to call religious education mythology, of course). Intelligent Design would properly fit in a course called “natural history”, which studied understanding of the history of the world whether or not it pertained to the scientific method.
Can we call ID “Intelligent Design Hypothesis” then? The hypothesis is untestable in principle, but only happens to be untestable with modern technology. The same seems to be true of String Theory.
Nope. If the designer is alive then abiogenesis has to explain the origin of the living designer.
Correct, which is why scientists call it “abiogenesis” and not “evolution”. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life and of Species”. Abiogenesis is a separate subject, about which much less is known than about evolution.
To answer that you will have to ask the moderators. The rest of us are just passing the time until they let us know…
Ah, isn’t science wonderful. It looks like we have come up with a way to make testable predictions from String Theory:However, the biggest criticism of String Theory is that it isn’t testable. But now, a research team led by scientists from the Imperial College London unexpectedly discovered that that string theory also seems to predict the behavior of entangled quantum particles. As this prediction can be tested in the laboratory, the researchers say they can now test string theory.
Well we are banned from asking that, so can we discuss the matter?To answer that you will have to ask the moderators. The rest of us are just passing the time until they let us know…
rossum
I cannot speak for “Christians” but I do know that there are Catholics who do discuss evolution off line. CAF has a right to determine its own policy without question.Again, Prodigal_Son i am more than happy to correct, and educated, you on your lack of understand of what is, and is not, science. However can we do this on another thread please!
I just want to understand why Christians are too scared to allow the discussion of evolution?
Given that this forum is subject to the ban I suspect many people are wary of joining the discussion. You might get a better response at the Back Fence forum, where discussion of evolution is not banned.