tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12294491.post216855948842340170..comments2008-04-30T11:41:07.222-04:00Denysehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16066837660957290645oleary@sympatico.caBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12294491.post-78524531277087687652008-01-21T09:32:00.000-05:002008-01-21T09:32:00.000-05:00Corn, your choice of D and E abortions (as "science?") speaks volumes, actually. "Science" is about killing kids and "philosophy" is about the oddd views of people who are upset by the fact that one does it?<BR/><BR/>As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.Denysehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16066837660957290645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12294491.post-69777676285979312442008-01-21T09:02:00.000-05:002008-01-21T09:02:00.000-05:00Denyse, it's not so much about "dating" your predictions, it's about the type of predictions you are making. You are using the vernacular sense of the word rather than the scientific sense. This has played out over and over again as the public fails to understand that terms like "theory" have a specific meaning in scientific use. In this case, the "predictions" being asked for are "hypotheses" which can then be tested through experimentation and observation. So when you write "Positive prediction: We will learn more about the real nature of our universe and our place in it, and how best we can explore it when we accept the fact that it didn't 'just happen'" you're not predicting anything that can be tested and repeated in a scientific matter.<BR/><BR/>The claim by scientists is that ID is not science because it makes no testable predictions. An example of a scientific prediction is the germ theory of disease. Scientists postulate that viruses make us sick, not demons (as some might suggest). They observe (there appears to be all of these microscopic things in people with colds), form a hypothesis (colds are caused by this newly discovered microbe we will call a virus), test the hypothesis (if we inject 20 college students with this microbe they should get colds), and record their experiment and findings to be reviewed and tested by others.<BR/><BR/>ID makes no such predictions. If Dembski's comment above is representative of the ID position then it is not Science and should not be considered in Science class. It would appear from the comment that what ID wants is not to present an alternative to the theory of evolution but rather an alternative to science. That's all well and good if that is indeed the stated goal, but it's deceitful when presented as a different "theory" when in reality it's an attack on science.<BR/><BR/>Much if ID is concerned with refuting evolution, particularly the evolution of man. One of the criticisms made of evolution is that it does not explain the origin of the universe. Of course not! It's not a theory of cosmology, it's a theory of the diversity of species. It's not even a theory about the origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis). ID makes no predictions here - it simply states that science doesn't currently know and then predicts that science will never know and therefore is the work of some higher being. We all know who that higher being is - it is an insult that ID proponents try to pretend it's not the Christian God and an insult to that God when they deny him publicly while crediting him privately.<BR/><BR/>When a med student is learning a procedure (for example, a second trimester D&E) they don't learn about religious objections to the practice, they learn how to perform the practice safely (relative to the mother of course), to minimize risk (to the mother's life), and to look out for the various (medical) complications that may ensue. It is in their philosophy class that they learn about Medical Ethics and what controversies, both religious and non-religious, surround the procedure (at my school ME was a required course, I suspect the same at other schools). It is in their psychology classes that they learn about the psychological trauma that may be experienced by those who've undergone the procedure.<BR/><BR/>If ID wants to be treated as science (i.e. studied in science class) then it should play by the rules of science. Otherwise ID proponents should lobby for its inclusion in philosophy and history classes. Philosophy is the perfect place for ID to make its case and in fact it might have a better shot at winning proponents there than it would among scientists.cornnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12294491.post-38560788617790697302008-01-20T16:53:00.000-05:002008-01-20T16:53:00.000-05:00Oleg, if I could backdate my predictions to 1998, before I ever thought much about the intelligent design controversy, don't you think I would? Today is all I have so I start today.Denysehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16066837660957290645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12294491.post-36605169698243011882008-01-20T15:50:00.000-05:002008-01-20T15:50:00.000-05:00You're answering a totally different question, Denyse. <BR/><BR/>The original question was about predictions that <I>already have been</I> confirmed by researchers (which, I presume, means in the lab). All of your answers are built around future tense. <BR/><BR/>And Dembski has already answered a similar question thusly: "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots." <BR/><BR/>I don't think his answer will be much different this time.oleghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.com