View Single Post
Old 11-26-2005, 09:56 PM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 693
Default Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"

My beef is with the teaching of the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution as essentially factual.

[/ QUOTE ]

No science is taught as an essential fact. A scientific theory must have a dynamic nature and i doubt any scientists feel they have ever theorized any essential facts.

Here something you should probably see:
(From wikipedia)
"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

The Neo-Darwinian model falls apart so badly in explaining experimental phenomenon regarding evolution

[/ QUOTE ]


1. its more likely that a substantially better theory of evolution is the correct answer

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no correct answer! There are models with better predicitions than others. The one that predicts the best wins!

Neo-Darwinism to me is so weak the design argument is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give some basis for this ludicrous claim!

i really hope you're not trying to say that a lack of evidence for neo-darwinism is somehow evidence in favor of design. If not, i'm curious to why you think design produces better predicitions than neo-darwinism?

The aurgument that you state where you conclude that intelligent design can only be a religious belief I don't agree with. I'm thinking of a new thread to clarify my position on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

based on the philosophy of science i gave to you at the top of the post, this is how ID holds up:
(from wikipedia)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:

* Intelligent design lacks consistency.[12]
* Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[13]
* Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[14]
* Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[15]
* Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[16]

Critics contend that Intelligent Design cannot be said to follow the scientific method.[17]: there is no way to test its conjectures, and that the underlying assumptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change."

Now aside from the philosophical definiton of science, the supreme court has ruled on a legal defition of what is considered scientifically accepted by the federal courts:

"The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
* The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
* There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

Intelligent design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria."
Reply With Quote