On 26/08/2012 05:47 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 1:06, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must
>> have been caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT.
>
> Only if you don't further refine magic.

Well, see, this is the thing. Before science came along, every time 
somebody saw something they couldn't explain, they said "it must be 
magic". And then people would pluck theories out of thin air for how 
this "magic" actually works. Which theory is "correct" depends on who is 
the biggest authority figure, or who is the best at arguing.

The central, *central* tenement of science is that you *test* these 
theories. Any theory that fails testing is wrong. Any theory, no matter 
how crazy it sounds, that passes testing is deemed correct (until we 
find out otherwise). Most particularly, it does not *matter* who thought 
of the theory; it only matters whether it passes reasonable tests or not.

Of course, what ID does is say "Look at this stuff. It's so amazing, it 
was *obviously* made by a God!" That's not really science. At all.

>> A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the
>> study of
>> things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God DID
>> create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this,
>
> Depends on the details. Certainly one can imagine scientific evidence
> for the existence of someone having created the universe.

Sure. If you found a row of galaxies arranged in such a way that, when 
viewed from Earth, it happens to spell out intelligible English text, 
that would be a pretty big clue. But it's hard to imagine anything that 
could prove that /nobody/ created the universe.

Post a reply to this message