Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by Avenginggecko
I think we have a disconnect here on what exactly a scientific theory means. When a scientist finds evidence that falls outside of the predictable
hypothesis of the theory, the scientist changes the theory to include the new evidence, or creates a totally new testable hypothesis to take the old
theory's place (see the Big Bang theory vs. the Solid State theory). That is what science is, at it's core.
There are small steps to evolution, and there are large jumps in evolution - the evidence is out there. And yes, the fossil record is very incomplete
- after all, we are trying to record millions and millions of years of fossil record, and we've only been doing so for what, a little over a century?
Add the fact that the conditions to create fossils are also very rare, and you have quite a mountain to climb before you reach the top.
Once again, science does not ever attempt to attack religion or "intelligent design". There is no accepted book of science that says why any
religion is wrong. Science is a methodology that attempts to explain how and why things work or worked using testable hypothesis with observable
results. Sometimes, the results of this methodology conflict with religious dogma and people's faith. Sometimes, science is wrong, and scientists
accept that and change the theory to fit the new evidence. How often do you see religion or dogma changing itself to fit new evidence?
If we were designed by some ultra-intelligent deity(ies), why are there so many branches of failed hominids? Why do we have a tailbone when the end
result was that we would not need a tail? If we needed it at one point, why did the designer put us in an environment that we would ultimately not be
suited for? How do you test for "intelligent design"? What are the parameters? Who is the intelligent actor? God? Yahweh? Zeus? The enlightened
beings with Buddha? Aliens? A previous intelligent race? Also, if we were intelligently designed, why were we given the capacity to annihilate
ourselves and the planet when our civilization is unstable?
Ultimately, all of those questions either end with "It's too complex to understand," or "I don't know", or "It's in the Bible." Nevermind the
fact that there's no way to create a scientific
Intelligent Design hypothesis, because there's no way to test
I'm not arguing that Intelligent Design is completely wrong, and evolution is completely right. I'm also not arguing that there is no God and
science is always better than religion or faith. I'm just trying to get the point across that until ID can be scientifically testable, it's not
science, it's just philosophy.