I didn't provide a definition, but I would refer to the definition of "hypothesis" per any college science textbook.
hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or
empirical consequences
Which is exactly what I said. The theory of evolution is based on an assumption. That assumption is based on the personal bias of the observer.
Laws in science are highly specific descriptions of certain phenomena, typically expressed mathematically.
Which does not negate that once the imperial evidence proves that in all experiments ever performed the end result has always been the same; thus it is defined as a "law". Newton had to theorize of what he thought gravity was before he tested his hypothesis. And thus today, you never hear anyone say "the theory of gravity".
Theories in science are broad explanatory descriptions of phenomena. Laws may be part of a scientific theory (e.g. there is Newton's theory of gravity of which Netwton's laws of gravity are part). But again, theories in no way "graduate" to become scientific laws.
Did Newton not define those laws? Was that not the purpose of his experiments to pinpoint the consistency of the "law"? If it was not Newton who did this, it was someone before him. The named laws of science are named by man; recognized as laws by human terms; which in history past was couched in theological terms based on the concept of the absolute.
Your question is framed around an incomplete understanding of scientific law, theory and the theory of evolution.
My statements / questions are adequate for this discussion; as you also have incomplete understanding of scientific law, theory and "theory of evolution".
Science is about strictly "proving" things though. It's about the relative weight of evidence that supports are particular hypothesis or collection of hypotheses.
And how is it that you've so continently missed that this is one of the points that I've made.
ID currently does not have any empirically validated methods of detecting biological design. There have been some attempts put forth, but nothing empirically validated. You can search the ID literature (and I have); you won't find any.
Evolution has no empirically validated methods of detecting biological design by "random chance". And the fact that you go on to say that "Well it isn't really all of random chance" goes to prove my point. Darwinian evolution as a system of attempting to explain variant change in life forms defines that as by "random chance". That is the base argument of the entire theory; because to say otherwise implies design.
If the evidence supported ID, then I would support ID. For the record, I actually think ID is an incredibly intriguing idea. The problem is that at the moment that is all it is: just an idea.
And your other problem is that all evolution is; is an idea. So why you choose one idea over the other - again is a matter of "observer bias". You swear the same argument against the ID proponents. Take the log out of your own eye!
This is why I'm highly critical of what ID proponents put forth scientifically, because it order to support ID (especially in lieu of biological evolution), they need a coherent, testable scientific hypothesis for ID. And that would include a process/methodology by which ID was effected on biological organisms on this planet.
The same argument is rightfully made against evolution.
Matter of fact evolution's "coherent, testable scientific hypothesis" is too narrow at current pace with scientific knowledge. Darwin made assumptions having absolutely no understanding of the complexity of life. Where does a genome get its DNA coding from? (Darwin didn't even know DNA existed!)
The sequencing that goes into creating the protein structures for even the simplest organisms I'm sure can be mathematically calculated; seeing how everything else can be mathematically calculated. Do we know the formula? No we don't. Will we ever know the formula? (I don't know?)
The sequencing that goes into the basic act of fertilization, has complexities that we don't even understand. When all the DNA "stretches" itself out to prepare for replication, how does it "know where to go"? How does it know what to replicate and what to eject into a polar body? When you technically have 69 chromosomes in a fertilized human egg; how does it know what DNA to take from which source? How does the development process "know" which genes to "turn on" at which times to develop which organs / tissues / body parts?
Yet we know all this happens because there is a predictability in embryonic development that we can observe. The only possibility for that level of organization to go as smoothly as it does, most of the time; has to involve an intelligence that exists outside of the process itself. None of that is random. Now how are the selections made? Most of that, we don't understand.
So consequently when observing all these processes, the only "coherent, testable scientific hypothesis" can only be made for intelligent design.
But of course, because of your observer bias, you will not acknowledge that.
ID proponents don't have any of that. This is why I repeat myself when I say that creationists advocating ID appear to know little to nothing about it. Certainly the OP doesn't and from their own words, they have no interest in critically examining ID to see if its even valid science.
LOL - you appear to know very little about actual biology.
Incorrect. It boils down to what the evidence shows. And right now, all investigation points to the theory of evolution.
The only thing all investigation points to is that things are capable of changing. Intelligent design never negates that. ID only states that the changes only take place with in defined parameters. And
that is observable. Science has never observed change taking place outside of specific parameters, beyond the point of destruction of the organism. You can not combine human and ape DNA to create a hybrid organism and I guarantee you humans have tried! And we know it's not possible because if it were; it would be all over the news.
And for the record, this is NOT about atheism vs theism. Plenty of theists also accept the theory of evolution.
The philosophical issue is very much about atheism and theism because the only thing scientific method can actually do is gather data.
Your example effectively implies that those involved in the diagnosis of human remains have no understanding of physiology of human beings. It's an incredibly odd example given that those trained in the study of human remains, the recognition of things like diseases or variations in populations is precisely something they would be scrutinizing.
Yet this is
EXACTLY what evolutionists have done with the fossil record. What exactly are Neanderthals? They have the same cubic skull capacity as modern man, and the same interior cranial vein patterns. Do we actually have DNA from Neanderthals? It's toted all over the "scientific literature" that they are "not homo sapiens". Do they actually have a different genome - thus my example of Down Syndrome and primordial dwarfism.
Just because you have groups within populations that have variants in appearance and even different genomes, does not automatically mean "primitive sub-category of species" / "missing link".
Tea cup poodles and St. Barnards are all actually the same genome as wolves. They are all the same species. Yet look at what selective breeding has done to them? (Speaking of the frightful monstrosity that is eugenics - the domesticated dog is your most prevalent example).
Yet a similar outcome (certainly not to that extreme) is predictable with isolation of a population. This is why we have the variety of humans with skin tones, body types, hair textures etc that we have.
Now evolutionists assume those variants come from genetic mutations. Yet as was observed with Darwins finches - long beaks or short beaks was an internally set adaptation influenced by the environmental availability of food. Thus that can not be the result of a mutation (mutate to long beak and then mutate back to short beak - the more mutations gotten through the sequence, the more corrupted the genome = the less functional the organism. This is the stuff natural extinction of corrupted genome is made of.) The ability for that trait "long beak / short beak" is inherent in the genome of the species. That is the only hypothesis that makes sense.
I took a paleontology course in University and one of the things I remember being most impressed with was the sheer amount of analytical work that goes into scrutinizing the remains of organisms. This includes not only the study of the bones themselves, but studying behaviors (via analysis of trace fossils), population sizes, environmental conditions, and so on.
Yet with all that analysis, so often, so many still get it wrong. Why is that? Again, it behoves one to examine "observer bias" of personal beliefs. Another set of scientists with different beliefs come to a different set of conclusions (all looking at the same evidence - mind you.)
Why?
Again, the only thing scientific method can really do is collect data.
I never accused "ID people" of not having evidence. And I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth to that effect.
What I said, for clarity's sake, is the current state of ID science sits at a failed hypothesis. And that IDists have yet to come up with an empirically verified methodology for detection of biological design in organisms.
And again, I repeat - evolution sits on a failed hypothesis. It has yet to come up with an empirically verified methodology for detection of biological random chance in organisms.
