It's kind of funny that one of the things ID proponents are using against science is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. Since any new piece of evidence that contradicts a theory or law must be considered and tested, and occasionally a new piece of evidence will destroy a previous theory, scientific theories and laws are never as concrete as religious dogma. If you believe in a scientific theory, you're not paying attention.
Because of this inherent uncertainty built into the system, real scientists rarely if ever come out and say things like: "I believe in Brownian Motion." They'll come out in droves and say that all the current evidence strongly supports the case that Brownian Motion is the best explanation for a set of natural phenomena.
To most true believers I've known (and having lived in Oklahoma for almost 30 years, I have known a lot of them.)an indeterminate truth is not as compelling as an absolute truth. Reasoning with someone that wants reassurances doesn't work.
Which is to say that the folks in support of ID have a distinct advantage over the folks who support the use of the scientific method where propaganda and public opinion is concerned. I haven't heard anyone in the ID community express even a smidgen of doubt about the veracity of the "theory" that they espouse.
Besides which, most of the time, I don't hear the ID folks defending their stance, I hear them on TV and the radio attacking the theory of evolution. It's a lot harder to poke holes in opponent's arguments when every time you're given an opportunity to explain your side, you spend it defending yourself and your community.
Oh, and one last thing. I've heard that evolution can't be tested, which is bunk to anyone who's graduated high school with their brain intact. Mssrs. Watson and Crick saw to it that we could test for evidence of evolution through the study of deoxyribonucleic acid. Of course it's never 100% certain, but then if it was, it wouldn't be science, it would be religion.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-11 01:45 am (UTC)Because of this inherent uncertainty built into the system, real scientists rarely if ever come out and say things like: "I believe in Brownian Motion." They'll come out in droves and say that all the current evidence strongly supports the case that Brownian Motion is the best explanation for a set of natural phenomena.
To most true believers I've known (and having lived in Oklahoma for almost 30 years, I have known a lot of them.)an indeterminate truth is not as compelling as an absolute truth. Reasoning with someone that wants reassurances doesn't work.
Which is to say that the folks in support of ID have a distinct advantage over the folks who support the use of the scientific method where propaganda and public opinion is concerned. I haven't heard anyone in the ID community express even a smidgen of doubt about the veracity of the "theory" that they espouse.
Besides which, most of the time, I don't hear the ID folks defending their stance, I hear them on TV and the radio attacking the theory of evolution. It's a lot harder to poke holes in opponent's arguments when every time you're given an opportunity to explain your side, you spend it defending yourself and your community.
Oh, and one last thing. I've heard that evolution can't be tested, which is bunk to anyone who's graduated high school with their brain intact. Mssrs. Watson and Crick saw to it that we could test for evidence of evolution through the study of deoxyribonucleic acid. Of course it's never 100% certain, but then if it was, it wouldn't be science, it would be religion.