You're right; I.D. is not science. The gallileian method, formally known as deduction, is a different process than induction, which is what is used to achieve the I.D. theory
( ... )
Both Deductive and Inductive reasoning arrive at testable conclusions, and so can, and should, be examined and modified as evidence accumulates. Any statement, be it from evolution or ID, is testable, and many of the claims from ID can be proven false. ID is, at it's heart, creationism (Young Earth Creationism), it just replaces God with Designer.
The biggest problem arises when ID proponents attack evolution and attempt to replace it with "ID theory" and try to claim it as a valid scientific claim. The main argument, that evolution has gaps, so it's wrong, therefore ID is right, is an invalid argument in deduction or induction. Even teaching it as an "alternative" theory is irresponsible, as ID lacks many features that make it a viable alternative. ID can explain almost none of the observations that evolution can. ID lacks testable predictions. And ID is basically unfalsifiable. It should not be in science classrooms, and every attempt to force it in has to be challenged, to protect the future.
As someone who believes in both ID and evolution, it does amuse me to see people bicker over both bodies of thought despite that glaring errors that do exist on either side.
Though on the other hand, don't the people in a community have some say in what should be taught in their schools?
The theory of evolution has gaps, and scientists readily admit that, but the purpose of the scientific method is to examine those gaps, gain evidence, and modify the theory to fill in the gaps. ID uses those gaps to claim that evolution is wrong, therefore they're right, without any significant evidence.
They have some say, but not to use their own option of what science(or history) is or is not. And the biases of a few should not be imposed on children. It was a small group of people (the school board) who wanted to impose their ideas into the curriculum, the entire board was voted out in the next election, so apparently it wasn't wanted. Besides, ID is Creationism, which is religion, which is against the First Amendment.
Every theory has its gaps or limitations, that is why they are called "theories." I just hope that the debate never stops as it will help to further exlpore those gaps in. Though I did find it rather disappointing that the pro-ID group(s) could have done a better job on their part rather than rely on simply poking holes in the pro-evolution's arugment.
Click to view
Comments 5
Reply
The biggest problem arises when ID proponents attack evolution and attempt to replace it with "ID theory" and try to claim it as a valid scientific claim. The main argument, that evolution has gaps, so it's wrong, therefore ID is right, is an invalid argument in deduction or induction. Even teaching it as an "alternative" theory is irresponsible, as ID lacks many features that make it a viable alternative. ID can explain almost none of the observations that evolution can. ID lacks testable predictions. And ID is basically unfalsifiable. It should not be in science classrooms, and every attempt to force it in has to be challenged, to protect the future.
Reply
Though on the other hand, don't the people in a community have some say in what should be taught in their schools?
Reply
They have some say, but not to use their own option of what science(or history) is or is not. And the biases of a few should not be imposed on children. It was a small group of people (the school board) who wanted to impose their ideas into the curriculum, the entire board was voted out in the next election, so apparently it wasn't wanted. Besides, ID is Creationism, which is religion, which is against the First Amendment.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment