Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cornelis

Simply put, science is based on the scientific method and reproducible statistical analysis. It is a closed system, in which, if you play by the rules of science, *all* you have done is just that, played by the rules.

An analogy is the game of chess. If you play by the rules, you have played a game. That is all. How the game was played, and who won and lost cannot be interpolated or extrapolated, as if they were magical.

Science, however, can be interpolated and extrapolated. But the further away from the original experiment and analysis, the less likely that the interpolation or extrapolation are correct.

But Intelligent Design has no place in this, because it is neither a control nor variable to the experiment, and it is statistically irreproducible.

Therefore, even if it exists, it has to be ignored, because it cannot be integrated into the system. Again, using the chess analogy, the white knight has put the black king into check, and at this point, some intelligence other than the players intervenes and does something to determine if the king escapes or is mated.

Both players can just sit there for an hour, yet even if they both believe that some intelligence will intervene and complete the game, it will not do so reliably, every time. In fact, it probably won’t at all, ever.

So even taking it into account as part of game play accomplishes nothing. And even if a waiter stumbles into the table and the black king falls over, the players disregard that action, because it is not part of official, recognized game play.

Science has tremendous credibility precisely because it follows rules, is statistically verifiable, and can be reproduced. If something else is integrated into that, in an effort to capitalize on its credibility, its credibility is lost.

Look what harm Al Gore and his company of scoundrels has done to science, in the effort to glom on to its credibility for their own sordid purposes. The study of our climate has been set back decades because of this corruption.

And no matter what its motivation, Intelligent Design would have the same effect.


15 posted on 02/09/2010 3:42:25 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Science has tremendous credibility precisely because it follows rules, is statistically verifiable

Like the surety of the Science of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

16 posted on 02/09/2010 3:56:02 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Science has tremendous credibility precisely because it follows rules, is statistically verifiable, and can be reproduced.

How does Geology and Paleontology fit into this? Yes, certain rules are followed, but how is it statistically verifiable and reproduceable?

I agree that the natural world should be studied as a closed system even though I don't believe it is, however, if scientists are going to refrain from drawing conclusions of ID, they should also refrain from drawing conclusions of not ID, based on these studies. ID exists precisely because of the latter. Also, science needs to admit that it knows very little, compared to all that there is to know, and it will always be that way. A little humility would help credibility.

18 posted on 02/09/2010 3:59:56 PM PST by HerrBlucher (Jail Al Gore and the Climate Frauds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

So if I come upon a beautiful house, built next to a desert oasis .. It just ‘happened’ to build itself .. by accident?

Wait .. a human being Must be much simpler to ‘accidentally’ come together. (I understand now) /sarc


19 posted on 02/09/2010 4:00:05 PM PST by plinyelder ("I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Science has tremendous credibility precisely because it follows rules, is statistically verifiable, and can be reproduced.

No problem with that except there is a double standard wrt how science views evolution and ID.

33 posted on 02/09/2010 4:30:44 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Intelligent Design...is statistically irreproducible

So is evolution. You cannot reproduce a single instance of positive evolution. It is not going on. Evolutionists are as dependent upon faith as the ID'ers.

75 posted on 02/15/2010 12:52:54 PM PST by LiteKeeper ("It's the peoples' seat!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson