Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

I thought you read the book? That's the point, there's no evidence for a designer.

I am not asking for evidence for the evolution of the eye. Deflecting are we?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm puzzled. I thought scientific theories were supposed to be based on science????

If you read the testimony further, the lawyer gets him to admit, that ID is really a hypothesis when you look at the National Science Academy definition of a theory and his definition of a theory (which would include astrology as a scientific theory today), is a bit broader than what the academy uses.

So, how can ID, be a legit scientific theory, if there is no definition for ID and no way to to test for it in a falsifiable manner?

Moving the goalposts.

 

[crjmurray]

He never said that IF ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. He said that both would be considered theories in Science and that astrology at one time was considered a theory but has been shown incorrect. It is there in black and white.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

AYes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Make your own call, seems pretty crystal clear to me.

[/QUOTE]

You could just admit you're wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

You could just admit you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Did you read his testimony? Am I missing something?

 

[HitchSlap]

I am not asking for evidence for the evolution of the eye. Deflecting are we?

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You could just admit you're wrong.[/QUOTE]
If I were wrong I would.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry, what?

Whoops. I am asking for evidence for the evolution of the eye.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You could just admit you're wrong.

Did you read his testimony? Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
Yes.

 

[crjmurray]

You could just admit you're wrong.

Did you read his testimony? Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]

I was talking to Once.

 

[HitchSlap]

Whoops. I am asking for evidence for the evolution of the eye.

Why?

We were talking about evidence for a designer. And if you read the book, then you're aware of the evidence he provided for the evolution of the eye.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you read his testimony? Am I missing something?

I was talking to Once.[/QUOTE]

I know, I was asking you your opinion of his testimony, compared to what I said he said.

 

[crjmurray]

If I were wrong I would.

Well you are. And you haven't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why?

We were talking about evidence for a designer. And if you read the book, then you're aware of the evidence he provided for the evolution of the eye.

I read the book and there was no evidence. You can provide it if you like.

 

[crjmurray]

Oh yeah, you're spot on. I've read the testimony. Pretty damning.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh yeah, you're spot on. I've read the testimony. Pretty damning.

And yet, the words are right there for all to see and we still get denial.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well you are. And you haven't.

He never said that IF ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh yeah, you're spot on. I've read the testimony. Pretty damning.

What is pretty damning?

 

[crjmurray]

And yet, the words are right there for all to see and we still get denial.

Do you wanna call Behe or should I?

 

[RickG]

I said provide that physical evidence that is observed and verified that show it is an illusion.

Come on Once... . How many times does it have to be spelled out to you? Principles of applied chemistry. I have already tried to explain to you from the atom forward. Chemical reactions occur in specific ways under specific conditions, always; and when it comes to organic chemistry, the combinations are enormous. The data base PubChem describes over some 18.4 million compounds. Biological growth structures contain symmetry. They grow in specific ways that are observable and predictable through biochemistry.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you wanna call Behe or should I?

I'm quite certain the court reporter did a fine job keeping records, don't ya think?