They are too kind. I would neither call ID religion nor science. Rather some kind of speculative fiction. Religion aspires to bring people into a spiritual context, a relationship to the Absolute, whether it be God, Tao or Dharma. ID has nothing to offer sans a vague idea that something extremely powerful must have existed outside the universe, or even prior to it (an idea that in itself is dubious, as "prior to the universe" is kinda like "further in from the center of the Earth"). ID fails as a religion, fails as science, but might be usable for SF. (In fact, a certain novel by Sagan comes to mind now that I think about it.)
Congratulations! You've just demonstrated that you've got absolutely no clue what "theory" and "law" mean in a scientific context, and that you don't understand how science works, at all, in the slightest!
You win... REMEDIAL FIFTH GRADE!
(Hints: "theory" is not "hypothesis", theories are not "upgraded" to laws at any point, and there are simple requirements for a hypothesis to be considered scientific - and ID meets none of them. Zero.)
I'd also like to add that ID is neither a theory or a law, it is an apologia. I have no quarrel with ID being preached from the pulpit, but I do have strenuous objections to it being taught from the wet-bench.
-- Steve will also point out that ID doesn't help science in the least bit; it makes no useful predictions which can be tested or falsified. Steve's also pretty tired of the sophistry used by IDers in their scramble to discredit the (demonstratably useful) cornerstone of modern biology.
...when you have a model that describes a set of phenomena, which withstands the testing of the scientific method, and addresses observations with predictive and testable guidelines...
...it's responsible to take something that *doesn't* meet all those criteria, and present it as a valid alternative (in science class, which is what the article was promarily addressing), as if evidence and verifiability and logic and the scientific method were irrelevant (in science class, did I mention?) in the face of needing to hand out precious empowering options?
The "ET" thing you mention can not be a theory, as it's not (quoting torrain) "a model that describes a set of phenomena, which withstands the testing of the scientific method, and addresses observations with predictive and testable guidelines." Same with the gods. IOW raised eyebrows for both of them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-25 11:55 pm (UTC)It's very (very) unusual for me to be able to say they've got something right these days. Külness.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 12:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 09:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 11:59 am (UTC)You win... REMEDIAL FIFTH GRADE!
(Hints: "theory" is not "hypothesis", theories are not "upgraded" to laws at any point, and there are simple requirements for a hypothesis to be considered scientific - and ID meets none of them. Zero.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 01:40 pm (UTC)-- Steve will also point out that ID doesn't help science in the least bit; it makes no useful predictions which can be tested or falsified. Steve's also pretty tired of the sophistry used by IDers in their scramble to discredit the (demonstratably useful) cornerstone of modern biology.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 01:50 pm (UTC)...when you have a model that describes a set of phenomena, which withstands the testing of the scientific method, and addresses observations with predictive and testable guidelines...
...it's responsible to take something that *doesn't* meet all those criteria, and present it as a valid alternative (in science class, which is what the article was promarily addressing), as if evidence and verifiability and logic and the scientific method were irrelevant (in science class, did I mention?) in the face of needing to hand out precious empowering options?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 01:39 pm (UTC)I also like the Identify yourself, science dodging cow-human letters column, although I confess it was the title that attracted me.
(Internal ID is getting more and more... interesting? fraught? not sure)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-26 07:10 pm (UTC)But it's not even getting to within sneezing distance of the door as a scientific theory.