Difference between revisions of "User talk:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design"
(True) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
You know, the concept "Just" a theory is a pernicious and false meme, since it is impossible for something like evolution to be "more than a theory", since science cannot categorically prove, only tenatively support a LOT. [[User:Sotek|Sotek]] 21:20, 19 Feb 2006 (CST) | You know, the concept "Just" a theory is a pernicious and false meme, since it is impossible for something like evolution to be "more than a theory", since science cannot categorically prove, only tenatively support a LOT. [[User:Sotek|Sotek]] 21:20, 19 Feb 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == True == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've thought about revising that (and I probably do need to revise the page a bit in light of further analysis), but part of the point of saying that we need to admit it's a theory is that the fact that it's a theory is ''no big deal''. If you have a known phenomenon (e.g. evolution) and you use it to explain another known phenomenon (e.g. homo sapiens), it's going to remain a theory until you can reproduce the results in the laboratory. Once we stop battling the idea that "yes, it's only a theory", we can start addressing the real issues, such as what ''is'' the "theory" of Intelligent Design? What evidence, exactly, is it based on? Would most adherents to ID accept the idea that we were, perhaps, "uplifted" by alien races, or is ID basically just legitimizing the Bible as a source of fact, for them? (I'd rewrite this a bit more clearly if I weren't heading out the door right now.) --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 06:41, 20 Feb 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 12:41, 20 February 2006
You know, the concept "Just" a theory is a pernicious and false meme, since it is impossible for something like evolution to be "more than a theory", since science cannot categorically prove, only tenatively support a LOT. Sotek 21:20, 19 Feb 2006 (CST)
True
I've thought about revising that (and I probably do need to revise the page a bit in light of further analysis), but part of the point of saying that we need to admit it's a theory is that the fact that it's a theory is no big deal. If you have a known phenomenon (e.g. evolution) and you use it to explain another known phenomenon (e.g. homo sapiens), it's going to remain a theory until you can reproduce the results in the laboratory. Once we stop battling the idea that "yes, it's only a theory", we can start addressing the real issues, such as what is the "theory" of Intelligent Design? What evidence, exactly, is it based on? Would most adherents to ID accept the idea that we were, perhaps, "uplifted" by alien races, or is ID basically just legitimizing the Bible as a source of fact, for them? (I'd rewrite this a bit more clearly if I weren't heading out the door right now.) --Woozle 06:41, 20 Feb 2006 (CST)