People often ask ID or evolution. But this is a false dichotomy because ID doesn't exclude evolution in fact many ID proponents believe in evolution.
-
Scientific explanations: based on empirical evidence, are tentative. If in the face of contradictory evidence we question the hypothesis or theory but not the evidence.
Faith based or belief explanations: based on authority (parents, leader, etc.), absolute. What is questioned is the data or evidence but what is held on to is the belief.
Theories are hypothesis which have been tested many times and still not rejected. The construct validity of an experiment is dependent on the operational definitions as well as the honesty of definer.
The competition is stiff and the stakes are extremely high at extremely high percentages of the time.
I think it's fair to say that both theories have a fair shot. But then what do I know, I'm just a student at a Research 1 university, doing research about research.
Faith based or belief explanations: based on authority (parents, leader, etc.), absolute. What is questioned is the data or evidence but what is held on to is the belief.
Theories are hypothesis which have been tested many times and still not rejected. The construct validity of an experiment is dependent on the operational definitions as well as the honesty of definer.
The competition is stiff and the stakes are extremely high at extremely high percentages of the time.
I think it's fair to say that both theories have a fair shot. But then what do I know, I'm just a student at a Research 1 university, doing research about research.
-
It is only a false dichotomy for the most limited form of intelligent design theory - the kind which says a creator set the world's initial condition, then allowed or caused it to evolve. That kind of claim is impossible to disprove. It's also impossible to prove, and is therefore not particularly useful.
An intelligent design theory which claims that species were created separately, however, is in contradiction to the overwhelming mountains of evidence which suggests a continuous transition from the first life on Earth all the way to its current state.
An intelligent design theory which claims that species were created separately, however, is in contradiction to the overwhelming mountains of evidence which suggests a continuous transition from the first life on Earth all the way to its current state.
-
There's a very simple dichotomy. One relies on entirely natural explanations. The other relies on (or at least invokes) the supernatural. If you invoke the supernatural, you can't call it science.
ID is a fine as a theory, but it's absolutely not a scientific theory.
That's the only difference that needs to be pointed out.
ID is a fine as a theory, but it's absolutely not a scientific theory.
That's the only difference that needs to be pointed out.
-
And some evolutionists allow for the possibility of ID, or as I like to put it, II (Intelligent Intervention). Who's to say the DNA of a certain branch of the primate family wasn't "tweaked" at some point by an "outsider" to create the line from which Homo sapiens eventually developed?