I fear there may be some confusion about the concept of testibility.  It 
merely means that there are imbedded within a hypothesis the potential 
to see if observations agree with it. As I understand it, Einstein's 
theory of relativity implied several things about the material universe; 
if so, it was testible in the sense used in science, whether or not the 
means of carrying out such tests were immediately available.  In due 
time, a number of tests were carried out, which could not have been done 
if the theory was not testible.  I'm unaware (due to ignorance on my 
part?) of any generally accepted (past or present) scientific hypothesis 
not testible. Unless there's some potential way to test, it's merely an 
assertion, not a scientific hypothesis.  The weakness of ID is that its 
proponents cannot come up with a test to differentiate between  
ignorance (the "I can't conceive of how that would be possible" 
syndrome) and intervention by an intellect.; since science has 
consistently been able to explain things on the basis of natural 
processes, the burden would seem to be on the ID people.  And, of 
course, a hypothesis that can explain everything without leading to new 
knowledge is worthless; "God did it" isn't a bit helpful!

Art Harris

Heather-Marie Wells wrote:

> "As presented, it's not a testible hypothesis and thus not a 
> scientific hypothesis."
>
> There have been MANY scientific hypotheses that were not testible and 
> that did/does not make them any less scientific.  Just because our 
> human brains cannot come up with a way to test something at the 
> present time does not mean its not scientific.
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm correct that it was about 14 years before 
> Relativity was testible.
> Atomic Theory
> A round Earth vs. flat
> The rotation of plants, etc.
> The Big Bang
>
> Just because something isn't testable doesn't make it unscientific.  
> Likewise, testability doesn't make something scientific, either, in my 
> opinion.  Perhaps that's a point to keep in mind when looking at an 
> hypothesis.  There's a big difference between saying "Ok, I understand 
> this hypothesis but at the present it is not testible so for now I 
> must have to reject it" and saying "This hypothesis isn't testible so 
> its rejected and will always be rejected."
>
> If that was the attitude that all scientists took we would all be 
> living in a world where we believed it was flat and  the Sun revolved 
> around us.
>
>
>> From: Art Harris <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Smithsonian in an uproar etc
>> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:39:56 -0700
>>
>> The problem in part is that ID has never put forth enough science to 
>> allow scientific questioning.  Boiled down to its essence, ID says 
>> its proponents don't understand how evolution could have produced 
>> some complex biological structures and thus that an intelligent 
>> designer must have been involved.  As presented, it's not a testible 
>> hypothesis and thus not a scientific hypothesis.  The controversy is 
>> not scientific, it's political.
>>
>> There are worlds of difference between creationism and evolution 
>> beside the time allotments (and I'm assuming you're talking of "young 
>> earth creationism"--there is a tremendous variety of creationists 
>> ranging from flat earthers that reject almost everything scientific 
>> to mainstream religions (e.g., the Catholic Church) that accept 
>> evolution as the means that the Creator chose to create the variety 
>> of living things and require only that the Creator added a soul to 
>> the human animal somewhere along the line).  The order of creation in 
>> Genesis does not coincide with scientific findings.  The more extreme 
>> creationists deny many of the most important findings of biology, 
>> physics, astronomy, and geology.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Art Harris
>>
>> Annmarie Zan wrote:
>>
>>> While I am a historian and not a scientist and that may make a 
>>> difference, I am really confused about what the problem is here. If 
>>> the issue is that ID has never stood up to scientific questioning 
>>> isn't that what the article is trying to solicit? Or is it that you 
>>> can't have a religious faith of any kind and still be considered a 
>>> scientist?  Didn't Einstein himself speak of the roles God must have 
>>> had?  I am both a historian and a Christian and am not ashamed of 
>>> either one and don't see them as conflictual.  Where are the major 
>>> differences in creationism and evolution except for the time 
>>> allotments? A story written 2000 years ago got the order of creation 
>>> right according to evolutionists, this must say something.  The 
>>> recent Archaeological digs show there was a city of David right 
>>> where it should have been. Its not just the Christian Religion 
>>> either, if you've read the Utah Gold Rush you'll see that modern day 
>>> science, history, and archaeology are close to proving the Aztec 
>>> legends of the seven gold mines from their spiritual heritage.  It 
>>> seems to me it would make a lot of sense to use the history of 
>>> people's faiths as a stepping stone to explore scientific and 
>>> historic possibilities rather than to waste all the research 
>>> theologians and philosophers have already collected.
>>>  Annmarie Zan
>>> ========================================================= Important 
>>> Subscriber Information:
>>>
>>> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
>>> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed 
>>> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail 
>>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>>> should read "help" (without the quotes).
>>>
>>> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail 
>>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>>> should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Laboratory for Environmental Biology, Centennial Museum
>> University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX  79968-0915
>> [log in to unmask]   http://museum.utep.edu/
>> http://museum.utep.edu/chih/chihdes.htm
>>
>> =========================================================
>> Important Subscriber Information:
>>
>> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
>> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed 
>> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail 
>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>> should read "help" (without the quotes).
>>
>> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail 
>> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>> should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed 
> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail 
> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
> should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message 
> to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read 
> "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>


-- 
Laboratory for Environmental Biology, Centennial Museum
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX  79968-0915
[log in to unmask]   http://museum.utep.edu/
http://museum.utep.edu/chih/chihdes.htm 

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).