"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).
|
