2007-01-08 12:55:44 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I could turn that around. Is it scientific to start with a preconceived notion, such as naturalism, and work towards proving it by clinging to evolution in the face of almost all evidence? That's the problem I have with the anti-Intelligent Design crowd. They have decided a priori that there is no creator - if a God at all, certainly not one who created - and go from there. That doesn't seem very scientific to me.
2007-01-08 12:59:46 · answer #1 · answered by Gary B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm surprised at the question and all of the answers so far.
The principle tool of the scientific method is to falsification of hypotheses. One can never prove any hypothesis to be true. But any valid hypothesis always implies experiments that can prove it wrong. If any one experiment does prove the hypothesis wrong, then you're done. But if not experiment proves the hypothesis wrong, you haven't proved the hypothesis to be true, you've merely increased the probability of it being true.
Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable theory, so it is not a scientific theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory, and has never been falsified.
2007-01-08 21:54:55 · answer #2 · answered by Jim L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only if your null hypothesis is that there is no God and your experimental method is without bias.
All scientists are working toward proving something, but the scientific method demands theat the proof not be obtained through a prcess that lacks objectivity. Hence, a priori criteria for postiive and negative results, repeateability of the experiment etc.
2007-01-08 21:00:42 · answer #3 · answered by mullah robertson 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Is it scientific to start with another preconcieved notion that things just happened around by chance (not just us humans but the Earth and the Universe itself) and work towards proving it?
2007-01-08 21:00:07 · answer #4 · answered by thstuff9946 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is only scientific if you start with a direct, explicit theory, and then use the scientific method to look for support for your theory (not to prove it, but to find evidence in favor of it).
2007-01-08 21:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by pocos_playhouse 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, the anthropic principle is just that. It can work, but I think the minimum requirement would be that the notion be perceivable (i.e., we exist, therefore we exist in a universe that allows our existence).
A supernatural Cosmic Muffin does not meet that test.
2007-01-08 21:06:35 · answer #6 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About as scientific as saying big bang, and then working towards proving it. I hate that theory.
2007-01-08 20:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by Atlas 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋