[QUOTE=Monty]
Actually, there is no “circumstantial evidence” at all supporting ID (which isn’t different from Creationism; it’s merely another name for it). The premise the IDers have is that a deity created the universe and since the universe exists, that proves the deity created it.
You seem to be confused by the difference between science and history.
Again, you appear to be confused.
Hie down the road, so to speak, and read the numerous threads explaining in patient detail the way a scientific theory comes about.
History ain’t Science.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Unfortunately, years of bad-to-middling lawyer TV shows seems to have left the impression that “circumstantial” means “flimsy”, “hypothetical” or “about as convincing as Tarot cards.”
Formal definitions are available but to gist of “circumstantial evidence” is that it helps one to infer the truth in the absence of an actual witness. In matters of science, you’ll have to decide which is more convincing:
[list=#[li]Scientist: I compiled the findings of various geologists, paleontologists and geneticists and collectively their work strongly implies an Earth which is billions of years old, with a gradual progression of lifeforms slowly changing into recognizable modern forms with many DNA markers in common.[/li][li]Intelligent-design Advocate: God tells me ID is true.[/list][/li]
Technically, the second is eyewitness evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence. I’ll go with the first, thanks.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry for not replying back to this before, but this thread had dropped off my radar screen.
Anyway, there’s a quite a bit of whooshing going on here. I guess I should have added some rolleye smilies to make the sarcasm of my previous post more apparent.
For the record, Monty, I’m well aware of what a scientific theory is, and how it comes about. Also, Bryan Ekers, I certainly do not think “circumstantial” means “flimsy.”
To avoid any further confusion, let me make my position perfectly clear. Creationism/ID is, of course, complete and utter superstitious, unscientific nonsense. I did not state, Monty, that there was any evidence whatsoever for creationism/ID, circumstantial or other.
Instead, in my previous post, I was sarcastically responding to diggleblop’s comment that, in his opinion, neither evolution or creationism/ID should be taught in school, because, as he stated, “there is absolutely no solid evidence for either one.”
I was noting that, using such erroneous logic, you could argue that there is no “solid evidence” for any scientific theory, or for that matter, anything in the historical record. After all, scientific theories and the historical record are inherently not provable things.
With respect to the historical record, after all, nobody alive today can vouch by eyewitness account that George Washington ever lived. (Now, I do not for one second doubt that Mr. Washington did actually exist–I’m drawing an analogy here.)
My whole point was that many theories (that creationists do NOT generally question) are also supported by non-flimsy circumstantial evidence. This diminishes them not at all. As an example, I mentioned atomic theory. Like all well-established scientific theories, we have a wealth of circumstantial evidence supporting the existence atoms, and no scientist seriously doubts their existence today. Nevertheless, nobody has ever seen an atom, and conceivably the evidence we have for their existence could someday be reinterpreted and explained by a more robust theory in the future. Indeed, this has already happened. Dalton’s original atomic theory stated that atoms are indestructible, and that all atoms of a given element had the same mass and other properties. Only later did other evidence come to light that was best explained by theorizing that atoms have subatomic structure.
As I stated previously, Monty, you cannot prove theories correct! That’s not how science works. (You can prove them wrong, though.)
I’ll quote from a textbook I used when I taught chemistry:
“A theory is a tested explanation of the behavior of nature. Most useful theories are broad, with may far-reaching and subtle implications. It is impossible to perform every test that might show such a theory to be wrong, so we can never be absolutely sure the theory is correct.”
While we cannot ever prove scientific theories or laws correct, that is the best way we have of understanding the physical world around us. That being said, for someone like diggleblop to assert that because one of our most powerful and insightful theories supposedly does not have any “solid evidence” (presumably meaning non-circumstantial evidence), it is then comparable to superstitious mumbo-jumbo that is supported by no evidence whatsoever, is the height of folly, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how science works.
