Re: [asa] astrology, ID & science

From: Dave Wallace <>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 15:58:06 EDT

Iain Strachan wrote:
> Interesting, George, but I had exactly the same thought - that astrology
> had a better case to be defined as science in that it makes testable
> predictions. The only "predictions" that ID makes is that something
> can't/won't happen by evolution - and that's not testable except by
> waiting an infinite amount of time.
> Iain

ID also has an implication that we won't find natural means for all
biological features that appear to be irreducibly complex. Maybe that
is what you mean? Just because something like astrology has been shown
not to make good predictions or a theory is still in the untested or
unproven state does not mean it is not science. To me the question
about what should be taught is not is it science but is it good science
that makes good predictions and has survived testing. Students should
end up with some knowledge of past scientific theories that have been
shown to be untrue, as this helps understand how science works. To my
mind ID is not (yet) good science and I question if it ever will be but
I could be wrong. At this point ID's predictions require waiting an
infinite amount of time, as Iain said, and theories that require such
are not very useful, but that does not mean they are true or untrue.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 4 15:58:25 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 15:58:25 EDT