Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <473dde89$1@news.povray.org>, 
> gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSPAMfr says...

>>>   Take any unsolved question in science, which science has yet not an
>>> answer to, and present the theory "it happens because invisible gnomes
>>> do it from inside the Earth". Even if the scientist doesn't have any
>>> alternative theory to that, it's still completely valid for him to doubt
>>> that presented theory.
>>>
>> The doubt in this case is for a completely valid reason. A key point 
>> with any scientific theory is that you have to be able to challenge it. 
>> Your little gnomes are hard to test for empirically...
>>
>> So the scientist still does not have a scientific theory, in that case.
>>
> Yeah. The first problem seems to be that ID people think *theory* means 
> "guess". It doesn't. 
More precisely they think that 'theory' in a scientific context means 
the same 'theory' as used in everyday practice. Possibly even more 
precise, they think that 'theory' means what they choose it to mean, 
neither more nor less.

Post a reply to this message