Joined: Sep. 2004
Over here, on a thread entitled ID is Not Science Because ..., DaveScot, after quoting Ernst Mayr about how Darwin's work contradicted the creationism of his time, says,
|Huh. It appears like Darwin was testing scientific creationism and found evidence contrary to it.|
So what is it. Is ID science or not science? It seems our opponents want to have their cake and eat it too by saying:
“ID is not science because it cannot be falsified or verified. And by the way, ID has been repeatedly tested and shown to be false.”
So what is it, Dave? Is ID the same as scientific creationism, or not? Do you see that you just considered the two equivalent?
Your last sentence continues the confusion.
Positive statements about what ID is, few as they are, are untestable - at least no one has been able to articulate such testable propositions and show how those tests are to be done. The arguments for ID are flawed philosophical arguments, not testable scientific propositions.
Negative arguments against evolution, which are the bulk of what ID offers, are merely warmed over creationist arguments, and these arguments have been tested and been shown to be false.
So Dave's post seems a confused mess. He first identifies scientific creationism with ID (a position everyone over there works hard to deny), and then confuses arguments for ID with arguments against evolution. The former are untestable and the latter are wrong.
I wonder if anyone over there will point out to him this equivalence of scientific creationism and ID, and I wonder if this post will stand as written. We'll see.