In article
<8f1dab13-4131-464a-999a-de52fe44e0c9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
patmpowers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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.
Random mutation seems to be the simplest explanation
and it satisfies the requirement that a certain amount
of variation be observed. As William of Occam
suggested, one should not multiply causes unnecessarily.
|
