Mike Marlow wrote:
"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:

...


I don't disagree with some of the things ID suggests. As I said -
nanotubes is a wonderful example.

But ID is not really science. It's metaphysics and philosophy, because
it's not a model of behavior. It a model for lack of evidence.

No contest. I hope you did not understand me to be arguing that it was
science.


Good. The issue that is contentious is the assertion by some
that ID is sceince and should be taught in public schools.
That is obvously just an attempt to get the public schools
to teach religion, which is why it is contentious.


I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. Scientists do this all the time.
But the test of time is how accurately does the model predict events.

And frankly I can't see ID doing this, because it doesn't predict.

But that's because ID satisfies itself with explaining wouldn't you agree?
No need for prediction under this guidline.

However there is a need for a theory to predict under a scientific
guideline. Absent a prediction, a theory cannot be tested. THis
distinguishes scientific theory from certain other intellectual
constructs such as religious doctrine.

--

FF