On 4/19/2011 2:04 AM, Invisible wrote:
> In fact, hell, even on that day, ID won't be science. The statement that
> there exist natural systems which evolution cannot explain will be
> science. But that's not ID. ID claims that God did it. This will *never*
> be science, since it is not possible to confirm or refute it by the
> scientific method.
>
> (Note that not being science is different from not being true.)
Mind, if you stated the hypothesis as, "Science can either identify, or 
at least test for, whether something is true or not.", then this would, 
given all collective evidence, suggest several facts - 1) In all cases 
where you can actually collect data, this maxim is true, 2), in all 
cases where data cannot be collected, this maxim is false, and 3) in 
those cases where the maxim fails, the reason is not that the data never 
existed, but has become, via time, etc., unavailable, 4) there is 
usually some grounds to assume that the data had existed, and could have 
been collected, had such collection been timely.

Apply the same to the god question as you get - 1) No data can be 
collected, 2) There is no evidence to suggest that such data ever 
existed, 3) Therefor, lacking evidence that data was *ever* available at 
all, the implication is that you are attempting to find non-existent 
data, for an non-existent object. QED - Its highly improbable that the 
stated thing being examined is "true".

Post a reply to this message