Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

[tonyrey]

*The difference is that we have **direct experience ***

Precisely! Where else did our power of design originate?

 

[Bradski]

I think that is correct. Otherwise it is nothing but science fiction.

Linus2nd

I can’t imagine this happening very often, but…Linus, I totally agree with you.

Now I think I need a stiff drink and a quiet moment to myself.

 

[Gorgias]

1. Is science the sole source of truth?

Of course not. But, you were advocating I.D., were you not? That’s not science, it’s religion. Just as I shouldn’t be teaching biology in religion class (although creation does give witness to God!), we shouldn’t teach faith as science in science class.

 

[fnr]

Of course not. But, you were advocating I.D., were you not? That’s not science, it’s religion. Just as I shouldn’t be teaching biology in religion class (although creation does give witness to God!), we shouldn’t teach faith as science in science class.

I’m with you here. Intelligent design isn’t science, any more than evolution is science. Science is a particular way to discover whether theories are likely to be true or likely to be false. The point of the original article is that, in order to be “scientific” a theory needs to be verifiable by independent observations.

I would posit that ID is not verifiable by independent observations. What can ID predict? Very little without adopting just about all the theoretical bases for strictly materialist explanations from the universe. I’ve heard ID advocates argue that ID “predicted” that there was structure and function to what was once called “junk” DNA, the non-coding elements of our genetic make-up. However, that’s not an independent measurement, but one that was available to the developers of ID when they came up with it.

I would argue that ID is little more than a critique of materialist evolutionary theory, for example, by comparing the theoretical rates of change by mutation to those needed for a new species to diverge from an old one. These are all valid and worthy critiques. However, its central tenet that nothing but intelligence could be responsible for the structure and function of, for example, the eye, is to assert something that the scientific method is inherently very bad at proving: proving a negative.

Beyond that, there are the inconvenient facts of biology… for example, that humans and dogs both contain nearly-identical genes for the endogenous production of Vitamin C, which when active produces the enzyme L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase (GLO). In humans, the gene is inactive, but in dogs it’s active. It turns out that humans have diets rich in Vitamin C, while dogs do not. In fact, all known vertebrate species that have inactive GLO genes have diets rich in Vitamin C. Why would people be walking around producing a gene that does nothing?

Teleology is more general than ID, and makes the verifiable prediction that natural systems tend toward greater diversity and complexity. It also underlies Catholic moral theology and social teaching, which asserts that humans are oriented toward their creator, and which is love. Teleology makes verifiable claims that living in a way other than which God intended results in problems, such as the elevated risk of blood clots, breast cancer, and hormones in the water resulting from birth control pills.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I can not believe I am reading posts like this on this site.
To what end will the Church go to deny Science and then, perhaps hundreds of years later offer another non apology?

 

[Aloysium]

I can not believe I am reading posts like this on this site.
To what end will the Church go to deny Science and then, perhaps hundreds of years later offer another non apology?

Lol. What?!?