Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:




Huh? How would it be a wild guess? (And what would be the
antecedant guess making this 'another' one?). The hypothesis
follows straight from the observation that Jewish males have been
circumcized in infancy for thousands of years, surely hundreds
of generations.


...by human hands.


Something a bit sharper I should hope. Regardless, forskins should
have grown smaller and disappeared the same way that giraffe necks
got longer, as each generation stretched its further, right?


I don't know where you are going with foreskins but giraffes
with longer necks were better able to survive in the ever
changing environment.


Not relevant. I said some tranmutational theories, not all.



We know that gravity
exists and we know some of it's properties well enough to call them
laws but we don't know all there is to know about it, even though
it is testable and observable. I don't see how anyone can presume
any laws about an Intelligent Designer since he would beyond our
scope of observation.

Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!


????

...
Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity
of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess.


I don't agree.


Well than what DOES separate one scientific theory from another
if not testable hypotheses?


That isn't what I disagreed with.

Regardless, what DOES separate one scientific theory from another
if not testable hypotheses?

You frequently misrepresent my views.
Science does include hypotheses and theories that aren't testable,
i.e. parallel universes, cycling universes, steady state universes, etc.

Two of the three are irrelevant to the issue of theory as they
are not theories. A theory is more than just a notion or an idea.

The Steady State Universe may be differentiated from the Big Bang
Cosmology by a number of observables which is why one theory is now
favored over the other.

The other two are notions that will not rise to the level of theory
unless one can suggest a testable hypothesis to differentiate from
other Cosmologies. Some who work with those notions may use the
word theory in reference to them but they do so coloqyuially, as
many people, even scientists, will use the word 'experiment'
coloquially not in refence to what is an experiment in the formal
scientific sense.

I doubt very much that you will find parallel universe or cycling
universe theory published in scientific journals, and I saresay
they should not be taught, as science, in the public schools.


... Albert Einstein ...


Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom
or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated
either for his religious views.



Another diversion.

Nonsense, check the subject line above.

No one claimed that he even discussed it.

Indeed, your introduction of Einstein into the discussion
was obfuscation and diversion. I brought it back on subject.



What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference?



I don't think you even know what ID supporters want.


I am quite clear the the people who are promoting ID want to
use it as a means to inject religious teaching into the public
schools. If you look hard enough you can probably find
one or two ID advocates who do not, but the majority care
not one whit about science, they care only about religion
and their leaders care only about power.


Not only
can one do science with or without considering the possibility,
indeed, the scince one does, in either case, will be the same.


It should be that way. I didn't suggest otherwise.


Why have a component of a scientific theory, when that component
has no affect on that theory?


ID has no effect on how we view the universe?????

No, at issue is whether or not biology or any other science would
be observably different with ID as compared to without.



That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples
of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed,
you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They
follow a couple of paragraphs below.


I answered the assertion.

With a repetition of statement I showed to be false.


No, you asserted it to be false.


No, you asserted that "you can't predict anything with evolution".



That's true and you seemed to agree.

No it is false and your statement above is even more false, if
that is possible.



Perhaps incorrectly, I interpretted that to mean "You can't
use any evolutionary theory to make any prediction" and then
went on to point out how one could use specific evolutionary
theories to make predictions, like the vanishg foreskin
prediction


Which I still don't get. How does a false assumption or prediction
prove anything?


How does asking a rhetorical question communicate anything?



of some tranmutational theories, or predictions
as to what may be found in the fossil record.


An individual can predict (guess) about anything. Evolution
doesn't make the prediction. You use the term like a religion.

Pedantry, and bad pedantry at that. You are running from the
issue.


...


Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete.
Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible
with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even
observations consistant with tranmutation theory.


Sure, how about the Cambrian Explosion? Lots of theories, no answers.


All theories are answers.


Only to the faithful.


No, all theories are answers. The faithful choose among them wihout
concern for hypothesis testing.


A theory isn't an answer unless you accept it as an answer.
That's a personal choice, not a law of science.

Accepting or rejecting an answer doe not change the fact that
it is an answer. All of the answers on a multiple choice
test are answers, the mulitplicity notwithstanding.

In the scientific method theory
is the exploration of the logical consiequences of natural
laws. You are free to use the word differently but if you do
you are no longer talking about theories in the scientific sense.
Theories are all answers to the question what would the world
be like if these laws are true?

...


Many
are not testable, i.e. parallel universes, bubble universes, etc. yet
are part of the scientific discussion.


No, you confuse speculation with science.


No, you confuse science with secular dogma. Science discusses
many things, not all are proven or even provable as far as we know.


In science, an idea does not rise to the level of a theory
until it can be used to make a prediction. People who use
language to communicate, rather than to obfuscate, understand
that "This theory predicts" means "One may use this theory to
predict".



I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
unless there are other motives.


If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom
the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law
to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe
in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would
promote a particular religious doctrine.


Which one?

Intelligent Design.

That's a religion? Isn't a religion more specific?


It is a particular religious doctrine.


Well, please enlighten us to the doctrine. ID makes no
claims other than the design has a designer.

That is a religious claim.


If you say
that is the doctrine, then explain why "the design has no
designer" isn't a religion.


That is also a religious claim, or to be more precise, an
atheist claim.

Silence on the issue, advances neither claim.

...

--

FF