(June 30, 2013 at 12:01 am)Rahul Wrote:(June 29, 2013 at 5:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: Meanwhile, we have intelligent design, which only barely classifies as science.
Totally following along with everything you said. Great stuff.
But this one sentence baffled me. ID classifies as science (even if barely)?
What testable hypothesis has ID generated? It needs at least one, right?
Well, technically the claim regarding the irreducibly complex flagellum could be tested, though even there I was being too charitable; not only had it been falsified, it had been falsified before it was hypothesized. And I'm not sure that a negative claim even counts as a hypothesis, since the actual claim part of the thing- an intelligent designer- can't be tested at all.
And even being this much of a devil's advocate for ID makes me kind of queasy.
Kim Wrote:I agree. I didn't start this thread to discuss evolution vs. intelligent design, but to check on some problems in the proposed evolutionary model for the bacteria flagellum. Some folks feel quite defensive if anyone brings up any issues with evolution even though we are all suppose to be skeptics, aren't we?
Well, can you blame us? No matter the evidence, no matter the quality of the presentation, nor the quantity of the data that's provided, we are called liars, frauds and fools by anti-science creationists with nothing but blind assertions on their side. It's tough being right, demostrably so, and still being denounced by people who don't even understand the thing they're denying.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!