Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2012,05:10)|
|In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. |
In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:
|Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise|
Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then?
The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. Important thing is to find the people who actually need such a theory and are willing to help verify that it is indeed good science, because that is not a one person job and trying to make it seem that way is politics not science.
In this case what now stands to be verified by others and already did great so far, looks exactly like this:
What is explained above either makes sense to all in that field in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that just because of something dug up in a conclusion that makes for a good semantics argument but ignores all the rest that is above it, that is already doing fine being fairly judged where it should be most useful and appreciated in reality if they did not like it too then the science theory part goes nowhere anywhere. At PNAS or Nature where the audience is expecting lab experiments that produce supernatural deities and other nonsense the issue is not an original computer model that does in fact allow the experimentation with what scientifically qualifies as “intelligent cause” at a place where there is a large volume of physics and other science related programs written in Visual Basic, where it fits right in with all the rest that’s there to for-real keep how-to experimenters busy on things that have never been tried before. That is what verifies the model and theory works for them too, and they sure don't mind the credit for being the birthplace of the theory that was supposed to have been impossible, that was actually long ago in embryonic stage right here with the Intelligence Generator:
Part of that is being “citizen science” that even residents of York/Dover who most hated ID helped put together, in their local media forum.
I always included Kansas, where Kathy Martin has all long been having fun with science too with no need to worry about places like this forum. There is no longer great need for her to make an issue of it at a board of education public hearing. She only has to be kept informed and knows how well the theory is doing these days where it most matters, and I know she’s happy with how things are going (even though not even I can change where the scientific evidence leads).
To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer:
From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness or to them too it's just window dressing the Darwinian paradigm.
This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that. Just have to accept, that at least for some of us, this is very serious science where ones who get all shook up over it are no surprise...
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.