On 4/15/2010 2:28 PM, Kris Sisk wrote: > Kinda hard to justify turning away a theory as not valid when you can't get > any of its critics to answer the invitation. >
Probably because all the critics know it is not a "Scientific" theory. But the problem becomes that in science the word theory has a much more rigid and specific definition then what most common, non-scientific people uses. Must people think of a 'theory' as "something I think, but I do not know". To a scientist a 'theory' is a collection of concepts, observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts." The trouble most of us has with IDers is that they want to be considered a Scientific theory without doing the science. They want to get that title by going to the laymen and arguing the laymen's definition of theory. Most of feel that one should use the scientific definition of the word for science curriculum. And in science it is all about what can be observed, experimented and tested and retested. If it is not provable, then it is not science it is faith. Faith is fine, but don't try to call it science. If they would do the science. I.E. design repeatable, falsifiable experiments and write peer reviewed papers on the results of those experiments. then in a century or two they may become part of the scientific theory. But until that happens most of us are going to derided them for there current methods and methodology. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:316022 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
