In that case, I don't have to cite a scientific experement on ID in order to prove that it is a theory. To do that I only have to cite the common definition of theory.
Wikipedia has an extensive
article in which it states:
Quote:
|
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
|
Observable facts supporting the theory of ID include the Watchmaker Analogy I cited earlier as well as the
Teleological Argument. These facts are flimsy, I agree, but ID barely qualifies as theory under this definition.
The article later states, "Claims such as intelligent design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience," but then the article contradicts itself when it describes two types of theory:
Quote:
|
There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.
|
ID is mostly conjecture, and evolution is definitly hypothesis. Both qualify as theories under this definition.
Now I'm not suggesting that ID and evolution get equal time in classrooms, lets be reasonable. Evolution is a complex theory and has matured greatly over the past 150 years, while Intelligent Design is simplistic and hasn't evolved much over the past two millennia. More attention should be paid to those theories for which good tests can be devised, and the other theories that are yet untestable or otherwise falsified should get nothing more than an honorable mention. This is, after all, how we learn about such things as Newton's laws of motion, the four elements of nature, how people thought the earth was flat, alchemy, eugenics, etc. These things are taught in school all the time, and some things like Newtoinan mechanics are taught in great detail. If they don't belong in a science class then they're still important as history, but that's for the school boards and the teachers to decide among themselves. I just don't like the idea of excluding a concept from a curriculum just because some people don't like it (yes, I think those people who banned evolution lessons from their schools were a bunch of wackos).