ID theorists often say it can't be disproved, but I'm not sure this is a merit. If it is wrong (as I believe) then in principle there must be some observation which would lead its advocates to conclude it should be rejected
2007-08-10 23:02:35 · 8 answers · asked by jay58 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
How do you test the similar aspects of the theory of evolution?
The crux of the matter concerns random chance. As an analogy, how do you prove a roulette wheel is or isn't rigged? You would need lots of statistical data and try to correlate it against all possible factors. But there is only one evolution so there is no statistical data and we can't know all possible factors.
I think the proper approach is to be able to state a Theory of Evolution that does not imply either design or no design; neither a Creator, not the absence of a Creator.
Your belief that ID is wrong is in the realm of philosophy, not science. If you believed ID to be right, it would still be in the realm of philosophy.
2007-08-10 23:13:01 · answer #1 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the fundamental reason it's not a theory.
The very definition of a scientific notion is that it is TESTABLE, first, last and always.
ID will have none of that , it at it's core states that at some point either in the distant past or presently, (they don't care to speculate which), some extremely advanced race/intelligence/entity comes in and "solves" certain biochemical problems which are "sooo complex" that they couldn't have been solved any other way.
So basically to my mind ID adherents fall into the category of people who saw the movie 2001 or 2010, and said "that's really how it must have happened."
So I guess we get to call them the first "Church of the Monolith"...except that was pretty much just so much science-fiction too.
It's not even that science says that there can't be monoliths or a God or whatever, its just that we haven't found any hard evidence of either.
2007-08-11 06:27:04 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A theory is simply an idea which has neither been proved or disproved. Calling Intelligent Design a theory is to give it the veneer of pseudoscience. It is in fact just a strategy for introducing creationist views into the US education system.
The basis of ID is that some aspects of the world are too complex to have been formed by chance and that they are due to the hand of some unidentified being (proponents shy away from calling it god or their plan would be busted). In order to prove a theory it must be tested by experiment. How can you possibly design an experiment to prove an eye is too complex to be produced by evolution.
What they underestimate is that the admittedly low probability of an eye evolving is swamped by the unbelievably large number of attempts that nature can take to do the job. As they say, if you have an infinite number of monkeys typing for infinity one of them will produce the complete works of Shakespeare.
2007-08-11 06:25:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
While the evolution theory is still called a "theory", many other ideas will still be circulated. People will justify that these cannot be disproved by the fact that there is no "agreed" theory. However, if the theory of evolution is proved beyond ALL doubt, which in my opinion and many people's it already is, then these theories will stop circulating. But it will never be proved beyond all doubt. Some people still doubt the earth is round!
2007-08-11 06:14:44 · answer #4 · answered by C S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are entirely correct. "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory, because it has nothing to do with observable phenomena and testable claims. Evolution is a scientific theory, because it is based on physical, testable evidence. Those who proclaim that IT cannot be disproven are correct; Neither can it be disproven that Zeus throws thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. It is a purely theological belief.
2007-08-11 06:29:42 · answer #5 · answered by Captain Atom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you can,t test it you can't prove it but if you have blind faith it does not matter the doctrine of fanatics the world over
I,am a Manchester City fan and that defies all known logic
Just thought I lighten it up a bit but its true I,am
2007-08-13 08:35:56 · answer #6 · answered by inthedark 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof rests on the proponent of the theory or idea.
.
2007-08-11 07:44:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yahoo is very slow this morning .. Whys that? Few good questions have been answered and there are few good questions too...
I'm sorry I can't answer your question, I'll star you instead.
2007-08-11 06:08:05 · answer #8 · answered by Sahra 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋