To think it is one thing...
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in To think it is one thing...:
Not to belabor the obvious, but this is exactly what happens with evolution.
Of course, that doesn’t make it wrong
-
Pedantic point:
A scientific theory never becomes a law with additional information. There is no term to denote a "stronger" form of a theory.
A law explains a relationship between observed phenomenon, a theory explains why it happens.
The theory of conservation of energy will remain a theory no matter how certain we are that it's true.
The theory of evolution will always remain a theory, no matter how much evidence is put against it.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in To think it is one thing...:
I'm sure you'll find this I interesting, seeing as how enlightened and open minded you are and all, but there are a sizeable number of scientists who admit that intelligent design has just as much credibility as a scientific theory as evolution.
@Larry said in To think it is one thing...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in To think it is one thing...:
I'm sure you'll find this I interesting, seeing as how enlightened and open minded you are and all, but there are a sizeable number of scientists who admit that intelligent design has just as much credibility as a scientific theory as evolution.
A theory is testable and has a track record of at least some data.
For evolution - you can test the theory or falsify it with data.
For intelligent design - it's hard to gather evidence of divine intervention or falsify the fact that it happened. It's fundamentally a matter of faith.
In that sense, it feels like intelligent design can be a hypothesis (doesn't need data), but not a theory (needs data).
-
@Larry said in To think it is one thing...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in To think it is one thing...:
I'm sure you'll find this I interesting, seeing as how enlightened and open minded you are and all, but there are a sizeable number of scientists who admit that intelligent design has just as much credibility as a scientific theory as evolution.
A theory is testable and has a track record of at least some data.
For evolution - you can test the theory or falsify it with data.
For intelligent design - it's hard to gather evidence of divine intervention or falsify the fact that it happened. It's fundamentally a matter of faith.
In that sense, it feels like intelligent design can be a hypothesis (doesn't need data), but not a theory (needs data).
@xenon said in To think it is one thing...:
@Larry said in To think it is one thing...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in To think it is one thing...:
I'm sure you'll find this I interesting, seeing as how enlightened and open minded you are and all, but there are a sizeable number of scientists who admit that intelligent design has just as much credibility as a scientific theory as evolution.
A theory is testable and has a track record of at least some data.
For evolution - you can test the theory or falsify it with data.
For intelligent design - it's hard to gather evidence of divine intervention or falsify the fact that it happened. It's fundamentally a matter of faith.
In that sense, it feels like intelligent design can be a hypothesis (doesn't need data), but not a theory (needs data).
Oh, no. Sorry, but it IS a scientific theory, based on the very criteria you laid out. Open your mind and go study the subject.
-
They put a guy who doesn't believe in natural selection in charge of the freaking Covid team.
Only in America. And admittedly, most likely Iran.
-
I accept evolution as factual. I don't have a problem with it. My problem is with people who declare it to be the end of the discussion, declare intelligent design to be nothing more than some primitive belief that only rubes and religious people push, and then dismiss me as being less informed than them when it is in fact them who have a closed mind and deficient in their understanding of the subject.
-
My biology teacher was a Christian, and he said that he felt that God chose the most elegant and beautiful method of evolution by natural selection in order to create life.
