"Gerken, Tom" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:a5invs01i5q@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I realize it has been over a week since anyone posted on this thread, but
I
> wanted to reply to some of Mr. Brown's comments.
>
> >When you find a theory is untrue, you have to go find a better one [1].
>
> Intelligent design proponents already have a theory that is better than
> evolution.  Since the first 5 books of the Bible are attributed to Moses,
> let's call it the Moses Theory.  The basis of the theory is that "In the
> beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1 NKJV)

How 'better than'? In scientific terms, this means that it must explain more
and /or predict more, and have less worrying anomalies.
It can't just mean that you like it better. (You are perfectly entitled to
like it better, just as Fred Hoyle liked the 'steady state' theory of the
universe better than the 'big bang' theory. In fact, he came up with just
that latter name to try to ridicule that theory. But when the evidence was
in, even he had to abandon his pet theory.)

> Yes, this is scientific.  Just because we lack the technology to detect
> divine beings does not mean they don't exist.

Divine beings (plural)? Prime movers? I take it, then, that you support the
observation that there are other Gods? (Yahweh never denied their existence,
only demanded that His worshippers should worship only Him). Might not sit
well with some of your colleagues, though :-(

>  Saying bacteria didn't exist prior to the 1700's is just as silly.

Indeed. But who did?

> So, what does this theory say about the reproduction of life on Earth?  In
> Genesis 1:11, God says, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that
> yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit ACCORDING TO ITS KIND,
> whose seed is in itself, on the earth."  Again in verse 24, "Let the earth
> bring forth the living creature...EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND."

I'm a little unhappy with the idea of theory by revelation, rather than by
discovery, but let that pass...

> To summarize, the theory states that reproduction of life forms was set in
> motion by God, (Aristotle's Prime Mover, in an earlier post) and that when
> members of a species reproduce, their offspring will belong to the same
> species.

Not sure how you would test the first contention, but I can see how you
would test the second one, yes.

Mules?

> Mr. Brown states:
> > You can never prove a theory, only disprove it. Karl Popper is
> >your man on this.
> >But yes, to be a scientific theory, it must be testable. If it's not
> >testable, it's not science.

> and
> >Another thing a theory must
> >have is explanatory power - it's not enough for it to pass tests, it
> >must also codify and structure existing knowledge.
> >It should also have predictive power - it must say things about
> >observations yet unmade. Before they are made.

> The Moses Theory certainly structures existing knowledge.  Don't let its
> simplicity fool you.  It certainly is testable - get your dog pregnant and
> see what comes out.  I'm betting on baby dogs.

Whew! For a moment there, I wondered where this was going....

>  It also has predictive
> power.  I will bet my small fortune that future dog pregnancies will also
> yield baby dogs.  Evidence for the Moses Theory abounds.  Every day the
> theory amasses large quantities of supportive data.  Every baby that is
> born, every kernel that sprouts supports this theory.

Alas, it doesn't work that way. Science demands *different* observations in
order to add weigh to a theory, not mere repetitions of existing ones.

> On the other hand, where is the data that supports evolution?  Why aren't
> the "intermediate life forms" evolutionists love, anywhere to be found?

But they are...

> Anytime genetic mutations are found, do scientists shout "evolution in the
> making"?  No, they scream "ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION" instead?  Why do
they
> hold to evolutionary theory, yet consistently consider mutation a bad
thing?

Could you plase supply some references to this, taken from the scientific
literature? I am unsure where these observations are to be found.

> Lastly,  Mr. Brown writes:
> >If the proponents of intelligent design make claims for it as a
> >scientific theory, and not a theological one, then they should come up
> >with such an experiment.
> >(The converse is not true; the evolutionists do not have to find the
> >experiment. Unless the intelligent design camp can demonstrate that
> >their theory is a scientific one. How do you do that? You find an
> >experiment...)

> I disagree.  Moses Theory proponents do not need to come up with an
> experiment.  The preponderance of the evidence at hand is in favor of
> Intelligent Design.

As I have explained, a preponderance is not enough. We need an experimentum
crucis.

>  If the evolutionists want to win people over, they should come up with an
experiment.

But it's not about winning people over. It's about finding the truth (or at
least, as science never surely can find the truth, at least removing sources
of error).

>  We experiment with our theory every time we have sex.  Ya gotta love
science!

Scientific experiments need to be independently repeatable. I'm not sure I'd
be happy about my partner participating in these, even in the name of
science.

> Thanks for letting me go OT.

As God said to Moses, keep taking the tablets....

--

Roy Brown

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *