[red5]

Or maybe a better way of asking is, who is doing science?
I ask because we discussed this in my Biology Capstone class today. Are people promoting Intelligent Design practicing science? The general consensus was no. However, an interesting point was raised- while they may not be practicing science now, does that mean they won't be practicing science in the future? For example, from the little I've read, the ideas ID have promoted haven't spurred any scientific studies or tests. But that may not be the case in the future, we may have to be open to the possibility that they may provide some "risky predictions" (as one of the professors put it) that can be tested. Are they practicing science then?

Does ID contribute to science? I think in a way it does, as it challenges some of sciences ideas and forces scientists to provide evidence against it, which furthers scientific knowledge. However, it seems to me that ID is not practicing science, but rather philosophy. Any thoughts?

[JerryLove]

But that may not be the case in the future, we may have to be open to the possibility that they may provide some "risky predictions" (as one of the professors put it) that can be tested. Are they practicing science then?

That would be using part of scientific method.

Does ID contribute to science? I think in a way it does, as it challenges some of sciences ideas and forces scientists to provide evidence against it, which furthers scientific knowledge.

I disagree. Scientists are already beholden to try to disprove their position. To say that it's "good practice" for them to disprove flying spagetti monsters is, I think, very erronious.

[Narcil]

Nice Dawkins reference there, JerryLove (What is the deal with the atheist attraction to his "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument, I have seen it cropping up frequently just this week).

I don't believe that even those at the heart of the ID movement would claim that ID is science. ID is actually a system of asking questions of science, and speculating on the larger implications of scientific theories. I think ID would be more accurately defined in terms of scientific philosophy, which is the discipline that thinks about science, but is not actually science itself.

[slap_j]

Maybe it's just around here but my highschool didn't offer a philosophy class. ID would fit right in there. They might try to shoehorn it into the science curriculum anyway.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Narcil

(What is the deal with the atheist attraction to his "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument, I have seen it cropping up frequently just this week

peer pressure. I am actually still a devout believer in the IPU and gravity gnomes (intelligent falling)

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Maybe it's just around here but my highschool didn't offer a philosophy class. ID would fit right in there. They might try to shoehorn it into the science curriculum anyway.

Yeah - It's really too bad that Philosophy (among a great many other classical subjects) has been dropped by the public schools in favor of all kinds of inane and useless classes.

Originally Posted by The Professor- The Lion, the Witch, and Wardrobe

Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?

Many scientific philosophers are also scientists, but not all scientists are scientific philosophers and some scientific philosphers are not scientists. As it so happens, most of the fellows at the Discovery Institute (the leading ID think tank) DO happen to be Ph.Ds in science as well.

You see, science answers questions about how things work and what things are, but it cannot answer the questions of greater meaning that scientific discoveries may point to. That is the realm of the scientific philosophers.