On Apr 25, 6:21 am, Alex Russell <alexander.russ...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> ID is not science. It is religious dogma poorly covered in scientific
> catch phrases. ID does not make single testable claim. The evidence for
> evolution is so overwhelming that you might as well argue the world is
> flat as argue that ID could be true.
>
You are correct in saying that ID does not make a single testable
claim. So yes, it isn't a scientific hypothesis, more of a
philosophical speculation. However, the assertion that species
develop due to the actions of random chance isn't testable with
today's science either so it is equally speculative. The fact that
the theory of evolution was developed from this assumption and the
theory works is actually irrelevant. Correct predictions can be made
from incorrect assumptions, so this doesn't prove anything.
I think the question will be more or less settled someday. Eventually
the process of speciation due to molecular motion will be understood
well enough that someone will come up with a credible estimate of the
probability of it occurring, and then this can be compared with the
fossil record. But I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime.
|
