Which is exactly the position that believers in ID take. We have our own theory which we test with our own senses and find them to be compelling. We don't need science degrees to "interpret" what we see. What is designed has a designer. Why is that illogical when that is the real life experience of just about all of us? Everything I use that has a purpose was designed for that purpose by an intelligent mind...when is that not true?....only in evolutionary science.
At least initially it isn't illogical. But then, you have to make specific testable predictions based on that intuition (not a theory).
So, for example, based on your understanding, what should be the connection between the genetics (DNA) of a species and other aspects of that species? Under an ID system, you would expect that the DNA would follow the form of the organism. So, the expectation would be that say, dolphins and sharks would have similar DNA while Dolphins and cows would not. Is that what is found in the real world?
How would you expect the types of proteins in different organisms to be similar? Would the similarity be based on function or something different? Give details. How do your predictions compare to the real world?
How would you expect newly formed species to be distributed geographically? Under an ID system, we might expect such distribution to be fairly random and NOT to be associated with similarly formed species. Is that what is found in the real world?
Are there any aspects of any species that are NOT designed? If so, how do you distinguish those aspects from the aspects that are designed? Give details concerning the measurements to be made for this determination.
Actually, there are a lot of situations where the first impression suggests a designer and after careful consideration we realize that only simple laws of physics are required. For example, the hexagonal stone structures formed when certain types of lave cool *look* designed, but are not. Simple cooling produces the effects that we see.
One of the aspects of natural selection is that it *can* quickly produce high levels of complexity in a completely natural way. This can be checked on a theoretical level mathematically and through computer similations. And the types of changes we see in the real world agree better with common descent than they do with independent creation. See above.
Again, it doesn't take a science degree to see that gravity exists. It is testable without a science lab or scientists explaining it. If you defy this law, the result can be painful. Its not a hard lesson to understand.
But determining which of several different proposals about gravity is the correct one *does* take more than simple 'impressions'. For example, Aristotle thought that heavier things should fall faster than lighter things. Newton claimed they should fall at the same rate. Which is correct? Is the force that keeps us on the ground (gravity) at all related to the force that keeps planets in orbit? For a long time, these were thought to be different. It took real work to determine that the same law of gravity works for both situations.
You are trivializing science by thinking it only deals with first impressions rather than looking at the details of how things work. I can see why. ID only looks at imporessions without given any actual, specific predictions or testable hypotheses.
But what if the testing process is based on a wrong premise and interpretation of the results are applied in a biased manner to support that premise?
Then someone else will test based on different premises and see if the results are the same. That is one reason why we need scientists from a wide variety to suggest tests.
Furthermore, if the theory is such that observational bias is enough to destroy the results, then it *should* be modified until that doesn't happen. Tests should be formulated that are objective and not subjective. That is why measurements and details are so important. Being quite specific about the expected results from an experiment *before* it is done and agreement about what the different results would mean *again, beforehand* is crucial to maintain the type of self-honesty required to do real science.
Also, and again, one of the initial goals should be to prove the ideas wrong. Find tests that push the limits of the theory. Determine what sorts of observations would show the theory is wrong*.
So, for example, what observations would be enough to show that ID is mistaken? Give a specific, objective test that can be made. It is better if that test would come out differently for the standard theory.
What if pride makes it difficult to show findings in a different light? We have seen what happens to men of science who disagree publicly with the accepted tenets of 'established' science. They are ostracized and made to appear to be deluded. Their professional reputations can be shredded and their character sullied. Most would just sit down and shut up.
Those that disagree and cannot demonstrate their positions with objective evidence are, and should be, ignored. Those that can provide objective evidence to support their case are often given the honors of the profession. The development of science is filled with such examples.
For example, Einstein had a *very* different proposal for how space and time work than the common ideas of his time. But he was able to formulate his position in a way that was testable even by those who were skeptical and his ideas were vindicated.
De Broglie had a very different idea concenring how electrons work than anyone around at the time. But his ideas were fairly quickly adopted because they were objectively testable and gave correct results.
Gould had a very different position concerning the mechanisms of evolution (punctuated equilibrium). Once again, he collected objective evidence that even the skeptics agreed was applicable and was able to have his ideas considered and adopted by many.
The problem is that to really develop a new theory is HARD. It takes far more work and checking of details than the ID crowd seems to be interested in undertake. Instead of collecting enough objective evidence to support their ideas, even when considered by skeptics, they traffic in vague pronouncements. That isn't science.
I see all this testing within parameters of what is already accepted as a given.....no one dares to go outside of those parameters for the reasons just mentioned. Academia is ego driven and when large sums of money or prestigious accolades and appointments are at stake, humans do what humans do. They will sell their soul for the accolades or the financial rewards.
People invest a lot of trust in what science can accomplish, but it isn't always deserved.
Garbage. The way you advance in the science is by proposing new ideas that can be tested, collecting the raw data to test those ideas, and having your ideas justified by the data to the point that even a skeptic is forced to agree. This happens ALL THE TIME and is essential to really get to the top of any area of science.
If a first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed.
If your first premise is flawed, the observations will quickly show that to be the case. At least they will *if* your premise is specific and detailed enough to qualify as science.
But again we are talking about that first premise, not the details that are built on it. You cannot test macro-evolution like you can test bacteria under a microscope. There is no 'documentation' that acts as a reference except the fossil record and it is sadly lacking any real proof for what science suggests "might have" or "could have" taken place all those millions of years ago.
While the fossil record has its deficiencies, it is good enough in many cases to establish exactly the type of macro-evolution (evolution from one genus or family to another) that you required. It isn't detailed enough to do this in *all* cases, but it is enough to do it for enough cases to show the general result.
My beef is not so much that men of science have formulated their theory, but in the way that theory is promoted.
I agree. The ID crowd goes *first* to the public, attempting to get its ideas written into law before they have been demonstrated scientifically.
If it is NOT an established FACT, then it should be taught as an unproven theory. To 'brainwash' school children into believing that it is unquestionable, IMO is immoral and deceptive.
NO science is unquestionable. If your edication said otherwise, blame the educational system, not the scientists. But, while that is the case, we have enough confidence in our conclusions because of extensive testing to say they should be taught in schools.
To penalize students in a science exam for not answering a question on evolution "correctly" because they don't believe it, is also a loss of fundamental freedom of thought and expression. The education system has simply replaced one belief system with another that they have accepted as somehow more convincing. Why is it more convincing? Because of the aggressive way it is 'marketed'...not because it has proven to be true.
Garbage. To disagree is one thing. But we don't expect that school children (or their parents) to be up on the most recent research.You can 'disagree' in the sciences *if* and ON:LY *if* you have the actual evidence to back up your claims. This is NEVER the case with ID or creationism.
