Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
30 bytes added ,  12:16, March 13, 2007
no edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:     
===Defining intelligent design as science===
 
===Defining intelligent design as science===
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]] of the [[natural world]] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to [[materialism|materialist]] [[metaphysical naturalism]] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived [[natural theology]] or [[natural philosophy]] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005.  [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories]</ref> This presents a [[demarcation problem]], which in the [[philosophy of science]] is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:
+
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]] of the [[natural world]] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to [[materialism|materialist]] [[metaphysical naturalism]] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific(!), but it is even more scientific than evolution (which it patently isn't.), and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived [[natural theology]] or [[natural philosophy]] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005.  [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories]</ref> This presents a [[demarcation problem]], which in the [[philosophy of science]] is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:
 
:* ''Consistent'' (internally and externally)
 
:* ''Consistent'' (internally and externally)
 
:* ''Parsimonious'' (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see [[Occam's Razor]])
 
:* ''Parsimonious'' (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see [[Occam's Razor]])

Navigation menu