Futile

[poliphilo]

I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.

Comments

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

I like the concept, but I'm not sure how well it works. A theory (of any sort) is something that might be wrong, surely?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Oh yes.

Any theory could be wrong.

Actually, I'm not sure we have anything but theories, do we? Some of our theories fit the evidence better than others, but is there anything we think we know of which we can be absolutely sure?

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

I'm absolutely sure that any theory could be wrong :)

Euclid had his axioms - things which were self-evidently true, but even they started to be picked away by geometers(geometricians?) in the nineteenth century. Rationally, I think we can only place limits on certainty (a theory that is observed to be substantially correct can probably only be wrong in a certain limited way).

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

Where do you place say, '2+2=4', in relation to your claim that we don't have anything but theories?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I have always had a blind spot where maths is concerned, but- yes- you're right, I suppose 2+2=4 is going to be true in any conceivable universe.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

A theory (of any sort) is something that might be wrong, surely?

Sure, it could be. But scientifically, to achieve the status of "theory," an idea has to have huge amounts of evidence supporting it. You don't just get to be a theory because someone had a hunch.

Sure, evolution is "just" a theory. So is gravity.

Intelligent Design, however, has not achieved the level of theory yet, scientifically speaking.