Aaron Lambert wrote: | Kim also asked: | > How does that invalidate the theory and/or | > evidence in favor of it? | | It does not. Being only a theory does not | do anything about the evidence. It just | means that it is someone's best guess at how | the evidence all fits together. I strongly disagrree. One's best guess is just that. One's reasoned analysis, supported by observation, is science. | > Using the same criteria, how is | > creationism/ID an equally valid theory? | | They are someone's idea of how the pieces | fit. That is how all theories start. Yes, that's how theories start, but scientific theories persist precisely because they are generally supported by observation. | You defined a theory as: | > ... a theory is a proposition that can | > be tested or demonstrated through | > inquiry and rational thought processes. | | In the very next line you said: | > By definition, the broader implications | > for Darwin's theory of evolution, that is, | > evolution on a macro scale (geologic | > timescale), cannot be tested in the | > laboratory. Instead, the theory appears | > to hold generally true for evidence gleaned | > from the fossil record. | | If you claim that ID is not a scientific theory | because it cannot be tested, then you must, by | your own criteria, admit that the theory of | evolution cannot be a scientific theory. It | cannot be tested. We can only think "rationally" | and see if it makes sense. How does that differ | from ID? I am certain that the ID supporters | believe that they are thinking just as rationally | as the evolution supporters. Who decides who is | most rational? Remember, there are PhDs on both | sides. I wrote (as you accurately quoted), "...a theory is a proposition that can be tested or demonstrated through inquiry and rational thought processes." Where testing in the laboratory is either impractical or impossible, we substitute observation. Guess I wasn't clear, but that's what I meant by using the word, "demonstrated." In our own hobby/science of astronomy, very little can be tested directly in the laboratory, but from copious observations we accept as fact, or nearly as fact, many of the "theories" that are part of the science of astronomy. For example, we can't test or directly observe what illuminates the stars, but we can accept the theory that stars generate energy through nuclear fusion because the observations of other processes support the theory. This also is the kind of reasoning to which I referred, that is, reasoning supported by observation, either direct or indirect. I know of no observations of this kind that support any religious hypothesis. Reasoning such as, "The eye is a wonderful thing that none of us can re-create, therefore there must have been some other intelligent creator," is not supportable/demonstrable by direct or indirect observation; therefore it does not fit within the definition, as I understand it, of scientific endeavor.