View Single Post
  #194   Report Post  
Fletis Humplebacker
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Bruce Barnett"
...


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.


There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.


I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
no evolutionary 'dead ends'.



Meaning what? Extinction or an unchanged design? Neither
one implies the lack of a creator unless you presume to know
his purpose.



We CAN use evolution to predict results.



You can't predict anything with evolution.



False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
is why some come to be favored over others.



Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
there are competing theories.


An hypothesis entails a prediction.



Not necessarily. A prediction entails a predetermined end result,
a hypothesis could entail anything.


But recall what Niehls Bohr
said about prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
in DNA studies.



If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis.



Evolution is not an hypothesis.



Sure it is. Unless you are limiting the term to "micro-evolution".


Evolution is a field of study
within biology.



Evolution, in the broader sense, is a theory. There certainly is the study
of evolution, but I don't think it's considered a study of a study.


Over the centuries there have been several theories
within that field, those theories spawn hypotheses which can be tested.

... That's
why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.



They should be given a better education about the process of
science.



More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
unless there are other motives.