Joined: Mar. 2007
|Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 04 2007,23:52)|
|Re "However, this treatment of ID depends on exactly how "hypothesis" and "scientific method" are defined. "|
I have to disagree with that. The way to make I.D. scientific isn't by redefining terms, it's finding some verifiable set of observations that is expected if I.D. is true, but not expected if it's false. Without that, its a conjecture in search of something to explain.
I have seen some people define hypothesis in a way that excludes the consideration of supernatural causes and then assert that ID cannot be regarded as a scientific hypothesis. I really do not have a problem with defining hypothesis in that manner but, for the sake of bringing ID out into the open so that it can be considered, I have used a definition of hypothesis that does allow supernatural causation. Otherwise, the IDists can continue their game of (1) hiding the definition of ID and (2) trying to divert attention away from ID by making attacks on the theory of evolution.
I am not going to play that stupid game. I have put ID into the form of a scientific hypothesis and I will challenge IDists to defend their hypothesis. I will refuse to be drawn into their game of demanding that I defend evolution.
I will not waste my time defending evolution. I will demand that the IDists put their hypothesis and evidence on the record where it can be evaluated by the scientific community.