The E wrote:I know this is futile, but....
DDHv, in order to be an accepted scientific theory that supercedes evolution, ID needs to do two things:
1. Make a testable prediction that cannot be explained using the theory of evolution.
2. Provide experimental and testable proof for the mechanisms by which creation happens.
snip
BTW, I'm a contrarian by nature. Given any consensus, I look at the assumptions and evidence to see if any other possibilities could possibly exist. Is it possible you have noticed any evidence of this?
That's not what you're doing though. You are strongly dogmatic and unwilling or unable to confront the possibility that you are wrong.
My objection is to the idea that one needs a better theory in order to reject a particular theory. Point 1, agreed. Why in the world do we need to move from one theory to another? Can't falsification by observation (experimental or field) or bad logic cause a theory to be rejected?
I assume that I am wrong somewhere. Like most people, I have assumptions, and am not willing to change them without solid evidence. The fun is in
trying to find out where the errors exist. I don't accept any theory as evidence, only as a suggestion as to where to look for evidence.
For a good example of how science should be done, look at the surviving soft tissues in dinosaur fossils situation. Discovered and reported. Reactions: 1) false, 2) inaccurate due to bacterial or other contamination, 3) a preservative element, and 4) evidence that the time element is wrong. You can estimate which point of view caused each reaction to be preferred by different people.
1) was reasonable - IIRC, two articles read reported that large amounts of published papers could (over 40%, one article, over 50% the other IIRC. I didn't look up the original research, so cannot judge their sampling methods) not have their evidence replicated. Since there are over 30 reports of soft tissue discovery, this can be dropped.
2) with our current ability to test for various chemicals, this should be decidable by what is found. For example, if any bacteria produce collagen, I haven't read about it. Does anyone know more? IIRC, work on this is ongoing, but I don't know the current results.
3) The discoverer is following this one up. She has shown that high concentrations of hemoglobin have at least some preservative effect. The young earth creationists note that the concentrations used are very high and a few years is not adequate baseline time. They speculate this could produce a few thousand years of preservation. Personally I would like to learn about an experiment with various concentrations, to be observed over a span of decades. Ditto with other proposed ideas on this one. This is how science should be done.
Using experiments is good science. So is pointing out that more observation is needed.
4) this speculation should be lumped with all other dating problems. Personally, in dating problems, things like pleochroic radiohalos, the erosion of base rock covered by sedimentary rock, the shortage of hills, valleys, and gullies in almost all sedimentary strata, or the erratic results of radioactive dating tests and such like are worth more attention.
Speculation is a needed part of science, or we would never have new theories to test. The bad part is when those with one POV use theories to demonize those with opposing POVs.
Isaac Asimov wrote an article noting that Lavoisier used other scientist's experiments for his oxygen combustion theory without attributing them, all of whom continued holding to the phlogiston theory.
IIRC:
"Even chemists can have a slow burn." Isaac Asimov
The ones that give me a slow burn are those who fake things. Haeckel's drawings, Piltdown man, the one recently published in National Geographic, Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial, etc. I don't know if NG published a retraction. Those who examine the Scopes trial deeper than "Inherit the Wind" know about the agreement between Darrow and Bryan for each to cross examine the other. Darrow cross examined Bryan, then pleaded Scopes guilty, evading the bargain. Neither Darrow nor any of the scientists who provided affidavits were cross questioned. This is hyped as a victory of evolution over creation, but is a victory of lawyering over science.
The person with a different POV is critical to science because their speculations produce theories you would never consider. Observation, whether experimental or field, should not turned down on the basis of any theory, only when it cannot be replicated. This does not mean you need to accept their POV.
Example: Steve Austin, PhD, reported that Nautiloid fossils in the basal layer of the Red Wall limestone are roughly 1 per four square meters, with about one in seven being vertical, falsifying the idea of slow limestone formation:
http://youngearth.com/Grand-Canyon-nautiloidsIt seem unlikely that any old earth geologist would think of rapid limestone formation. Many won't accept it as being possible, even with fossil evidence! They also don't pay attention to the size of the water flow needed to make the sandstone layers in the Golf of Mexico tapped by the oil companies. Thus certain other experiments and field observations will not be done, nor the implications considered. At least by those with that POV.
I will continue to have a slow burn at the way many people claiming to be scientists use the scholastic methods of appeal to consensus and authority instead of the hard work of observation using experiments and field work
