Le 2011/04/19 05:04, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>>>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>>>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>>>
>>> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,
>>
>> no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have
>> shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution.
>> That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to
>> examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.
>
> That's like saying that to prove Newton's laws of motion, you need to
> examine every object with mass in the entire universe. This isn't how
> science works.

What you need to examine depends on what you want to test.
For gravity, you only need a representative sampling. If all samples 
falls within experimental bounds, it's comfirmed.

If you want to prove something but you did not find a single case that 
match, you need to continue searching as long as you can, or find a way 
to prove that it can't be.

In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single 
protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their 
predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
You also need to do the same with every sugars and glucides, as well as 
lipids.
And then, finding one may not be enough, as it may be the result of the 
degradation or a particuliar splitting of another molecule. So, you also 
need to demonstrate that that degradation or splitting can't appen naturaly.

>
>>> there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some
>>> unknown case,
>>
>> You only say that because you 'believe' the theory and not the
>> hypothesis.
>
> No. I say that because there's nothing special about the disproven cases
> than suggests that they're unusual. If there was, you might have a case
> for suggesting that other examples exist which would, if discovered,
> support ID.
>
> It's like proving that Fermat's last theorem holds for all prime numbers
> less than one million. You might well argue that the fact that these are
> *prime* numbers makes them special, and the theorem might not hold for
> composite numbers. But if you prove it for a bunch of numbers chosen at
> random, there's less room for doubt.
>
> Of course, any scientific theory always has the possibility of being
> wrong, or at least incomplete. But based on available evidence,
> evolution looks pretty safe. (Then again, people said that about
> Newton's laws of motion. But on the first hand again, people still
> *teach* Newton's laws of motion...)
>
>>> and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory
>>> as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...
>>
>> That is entirely a different matter. These people need not be the same
>> as the ones that do the real research.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>>> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
>>>> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
>>>> students how real science works.
>>>
>>> I commend the idea.
>>>
>>> Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more
>>> professional than ID, is also not [yet] science.
>>
>> I also disagree on that. String theory is pure maths. I tend to think
>> that maths is a science.
>> I would agree that string theory is not physics yet.
>
> String theory is mathematics developed explicitly for the purpose of
> describing the real world. And yet, it does not yet make any testable
> predictions. Someday it might, but it doesn't yet.
>
> "Science" is usually defined as "the study of provable facts about the
> real world". Mathematics would fall outside that scope.

Most scientists, starting with quantic physicists, are uneasy about the 
string theory exectly for the fact that, by it's very nature, there is 
no way to observe or realy test it.
It will probably stay forever at the stage of a mathematical abstraction.

>
>>> (And examining why it
>>> has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)
>>
>> Remember that in the unlikely case they do find an example of something
>> that cannot have been evolved in an autonomous way, ID becomes science.
>> We might think that it is just as unlikely as someone handing over the
>> telephone number of God, but it might just happen.
>
> Point being, until that day, ID is not science.
>
> 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.)

Post a reply to this message