Philosophy of Science
It is not tenable to claim that ID is not science because of some criteria that it doesn't fit.
Philosophers of Science have soundly rejected such "demarcation." It doesn't work. It excludes things that are science, and includes things that are not.
This is an interesting article about the subject. It's written by someone who believes in both the evolution of species, and Intelligent Design. He is in no way seeking to advance Creationism, a "young Earth," or anything of the like.
Regardless of whether you accept his claims that ID is legitimate science, it should be pretty clear that you cannot say it is not science by merely pointing at largely discredited theories such as logical positivism and falsifiability.
Philosophers of Science have soundly rejected such "demarcation." It doesn't work. It excludes things that are science, and includes things that are not.
This is an interesting article about the subject. It's written by someone who believes in both the evolution of species, and Intelligent Design. He is in no way seeking to advance Creationism, a "young Earth," or anything of the like.
Regardless of whether you accept his claims that ID is legitimate science, it should be pretty clear that you cannot say it is not science by merely pointing at largely discredited theories such as logical positivism and falsifiability.
Now Playing: George Winston - Carol Of The Bells
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment