This is a good point about the operation of "real" science.

However, I think the think that makes ID not science is that it is
essentially a cop-out. ID'ers say, "We can't imagine there being a process
that could give rise to complex life forms. Therefore they must have been
created by a designer." Real science continues to ask questions and look for
answers. A hypothesis may be introduced on the basis of theory alone
(expected/predicted results). But immediately people commence to try testing
it. It is assumed to be testable.

ID is not trying to keep asking questions. It assumes there's the answer
there. It is the end of questioning rather than the beginning of it. That's
what makes it unscientific.

One of the main proponents of ID is a biochemist who has studied the
function of the molecular basis of the rotation of the flagellum in cells.
He says he's convinced of ID because he can't think of any other
explanation. That's not a testimony to an intelligent designer, it's a
testimony to the limitations of human thinking. Just because he has given up
doesn't mean other scientists would.

Biology would grind to a halt, since there would be no more questions and
the answer would be the same: "We don't get it, so it must have been
designed."

This is not my own argument. It was propounded by a researcher at the Howard
Hughes Medical Center, and published in their magazine a while back. I'm
very sorry that I didn't keep the article because I thought it was very
compelling.





On 1/31/05 11:17 AM, "Heather-Marie Wells" <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> 

-- 
_____________________________________________________________
Steven Allison-Bunnell, PhD                              [log in to unmask]
Senior Producer & Writer
Educational Web Adventures                             http://www.eduweb.com
Award-winning learning interactives about art, history, science & technology
_____________________________________________________________

=========================================================
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).