No Rick, Astrology is no longer an issue, having been relegated to the circular file. But if you INSIST on using that straw man, don’t forget to add in flat earthism and geocentricism to the mix.
Theories vary in complexity, that's why some are termed 'developed theory' 1.2 mil hits, or even 'highly developed theory', 142,000 hits. I view hypotheses as components of theories, but depending on the particular theory being rated, that can vary. But as Casey Luskin notes (link coming), ID fits the requirements of ‘theory’, but in a developmental stage. I regard it as an alternate (or adjunct) hypothesis to evolutionary processes, as I’m hearing more and more ID proponents profess.
If verified as a component, and if NS – RM is further verified as operative in upward progressions, then rather than ID being a ‘separate theory’, or one out to shoot down NDE, it merely becomes a ‘modification’ of the existing NDE, and does no harm to its furtherance and usefulness. What 'does' do harm is what follows.
As I see it, all this ranting about ID being as an isolated and unfalsifiable concept, purportedly in stanch opposition to NDE as currently stated, and coupled with the scattered (but sparse) disagreements with NDE in toto, it then appears to be an enemy of science, and something out to destroy science. Fed by the plethora of hysterics and pointless rhetoric, it’s no wonder.
Passing legislation like this Bill is one small step for man, but one giant leap for science. You can quote me …
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
leebowman writes:
No Rick, Astrology is no longer an issue, having been relegated to the circular file. But if you INSIST on using that straw man, don’t forget to add in flat earthism and geocentricism to the mix.
Theories vary in complexity, that's why some are termed 'developed theory' 1.2 mil hits, or even 'highly developed theory', 142,000 hits. I view hypotheses as components of theories, but depending on the particular theory being rated, that can vary. But as Casey Luskin notes (link coming), ID fits the requirements of ‘theory’, but in a developmental stage. I regard it as an alternate (or adjunct) hypothesis to evolutionary processes, as I’m hearing more and more ID proponents profess.
If verified as a component, and if NS – RM is further verified as operative in upward progressions, then rather than ID being a ‘separate theory’, or one out to shoot down NDE, it merely becomes a ‘modification’ of the existing NDE, and does no harm to its furtherance and usefulness. What 'does' do harm is what follows.
As I see it, all this ranting about ID being as an isolated and unfalsifiable concept, purportedly in stanch opposition to NDE as currently stated, and coupled with the scattered (but sparse) disagreements with NDE in toto, it then appears to be an enemy of science, and something out to destroy science. Fed by the plethora of hysterics and pointless rhetoric, it’s no wonder.
Passing legislation like this Bill is one small step for man, but one giant leap for science. You can quote me …
And regarding ‘null hypotheses’, go to Casey’s blog, and feel free to join their debate.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/...
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.