Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)|
That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.
I try not to go into dramatics over what was true back then about the theory. I'm just eager for all that to change. Cannot rush things, or else get conflict from too much all at once. Knee-jerk reactions that very much happen (regardless of clear and precise I word the theory) can have some trying to take down your best journals.
|Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)|
Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?
Seriously speaking, trollish one, the closest thing to a hypothesis is here the premise of the theory.
|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.|
It is a one sentence statement that is true or false depending on the supporting theory, that the premise does not provide just assumes can exist. Hence the big-tent that included the ARN forum to help write the theory where I did have fun even though my being so scientifically demanding was very annoying to some there. The premise/hypothesis spelled out what was needed for a theory, but only a theory making sense in science makes its hypothesis hold true. That is all the hypothesis here needs to do, for it to set a far-goal to try reaching with a theory, where even getting just a part of the way there can be revolutionary.
I have to best I can explain what Creation Science needs to know, this is where religious theory that connects from the scientific theory belongs. And as you may have discovered in the earlier long list of vital to theory papers the CRSQ paper by Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins sure made it. All the numbers I was searching for on my own were all there, which saved me at least a year of work googling. Whatever motivated them to write/publish them, is fine by me, and I hope for more like that. The question of whether the inverted retina is good design or bad design is no doubt religious/philosophical, but that is what CRSQ is for. They here had a right place at the right time paper to make it easy to code simple but biologically effective vision system representative of any design. There is no having to give undue credit to Creation Science it's here giving credit where due for past help to the theory and I, even though it was motivated by a philosophical question. I'm showing what works for scientific theory, that came from the scientific content that fills the pages in between to prove true their religious/philosophical hypothesis. If you wish to provide evidence against, you should no kidding lighten it up as constructive challenge then publish it at CRSQ where that is for.
This theory does not need to answer the philosophical questions one way or another, or attempts to. It is more like the theory needs what gets hurled around during the attempt to prove philosophical hypotheses true of false either way. What's flying around in this forum from it appearing, only helps too. It's in a way like the perfect troll for a place like this, total scientist magnet that even has you all lined up to help tease it along too. That is very scientifically valuable, especially for serious people who need to make sense of an issue that very much divided a number of states. In many ways, the premise is a hypothesis that for good or bad on its own makes things happen, from simply being there, needing the theory to resolve a scientific model well enough to hold true in the forum like this one too.
Hopefully that helps explain how I found religious/scientific theory and hypothesis to be working together here. It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.
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.