94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 99:
Line 99: + + + +
→Human appendix
:::::::::Surely you know that science can never prove anything, only fail to disprove it, so nothing is ever 100.00% certain. So of course it is impossible to prove that all other explanations are insufficient, but that's not the standard that science normally uses. For example, an archaeologist who finds an odd-shaped stone can often determine that it was intelligently designed simply by knowing that the shape does not arise naturally. If archaeologists can conclude intelligent design, why can't biologists? Oh that's right, because in the case of biology, the intelligent designer is presumably (please avert your eyes) shock, horror—''God''!!! And as an evolutionist said, you can't allow a Divine foot in the door.
:::::::::Surely you know that science can never prove anything, only fail to disprove it, so nothing is ever 100.00% certain. So of course it is impossible to prove that all other explanations are insufficient, but that's not the standard that science normally uses. For example, an archaeologist who finds an odd-shaped stone can often determine that it was intelligently designed simply by knowing that the shape does not arise naturally. If archaeologists can conclude intelligent design, why can't biologists? Oh that's right, because in the case of biology, the intelligent designer is presumably (please avert your eyes) shock, horror—''God''!!! And as an evolutionist said, you can't allow a Divine foot in the door.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::The problem with using those sources that you cited is that they interpreted the findings of those papers to support their conclusions, but we have no way of knowing if those interpretations are legitimate. I think it's fine to keep the statement about the appendix in development in its current form based on those sources, but as long as there are numerous reasonable people on both sides of this debate, it would not be right to make that statement into a conclusive one.
::::::::::I agree that sometimes scientists make unqualified statements when they shouldn't, but sometimes it is appropriate because there is no significant debate on the issue. Everyone agrees that the heart pumps the blood and the lungs oxygenate it and remove the carbon dioxide etc. The same cannot be said of the appendix, and on issues where reasonable people disagree it is best to acknowledge the controversy when writing an encyclopedia. I can recall many instances of my biology textbooks making it clear that the function of certain hormones and enzymes was still debatable despite good evidence supporting a function. One in particular said that the function of the hormone melatonin was unknown despite a large amount of evidence (hundreds of papers, not just a handful like for the appendix) advocating a role for melatonin in circadian rhythm regulation. Whenever I see scientists discuss a controversial issue, they almost always preface their statements with something like "the best available evidence suggests..."
::::::::::As for ID, you can't really blame the journals for not wanting to publish something that is not testable and makes no predictions because without those things it's not really science at all. That is not to say that it's wrong, just that unless we figure out a way that it can be tested and come up with a clearer picture of what Intelligent Design predicts under a variety of circumstances, it doesn't really belong in the same realm as science that can be falsified. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 14:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)