UnMark
Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
 4-->| Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,214) | | Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer? Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence. By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure or explain. This means empirical evidence exists outside of science and science is NOT privy to all empirical evidence. Now what do we do with such empirical evidence is the question. Since science is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with such empirical evidence, it will naturally be left to others to interpret such evidence. |
| Quote | | The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history. What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon? |
Argumentum ad Populum
| Quote | | What does science have to say about how this belief in an IDer is acquired? |
Spurious Accuracy
Post Hoc
| Quote | | Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer? Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence. |
No, the claim is that none has been found, nor has a method been found for detecting "design". The only method thus far is "it looks designed to me," supported by some magic maths. Come up with a reliable method, and maybe we'll talk.
| Quote | | By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure.... |
If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, how is it empirical? If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, it's magical! How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things?
Now go away.
|
