Two different groups of scientists can look at the same set of data and arrive at two different, and sometimes conflicting, conclusions. How is this different than a political opinion?
In fact, I don't think 'intelligent design' deserves the designation of theory, either. It essentially states that things could not have evolved without an intelligent hand's intervention. Notice that could not is a negative. One can almost never prove a negative with certainty. That's one of the fundamentals of the scientific method and logical thought.
Not to aid the enemy, but science is not about proofs. The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven. No theory can. Theories can only be disproven.
As mentioned before, though, ID is not falsifiable. It is questionable whether the Theory of Evolution is either. If data comes to light that contradicts an element of the theory, the theory will, for lack of a better term, evolve. It is unlikely in the extreme that any observations will seriously impact the bedrock of this theory.
But ID also cannot make predictions. This is also a characteristic of a robust theory. Actually, ID is so flexible, it can predict anything, for if you have a metaphysical element to your "theory", anything is possible. A "theory" that predicts everything in essence tells us nothing, is not a theory.
ID is not universally interwoven with other sciences, another trait of strong theories. ID and creationism regularly contradict biochemistry, archaeology, astrophysics, genetics. The Theory of Evolution works seamlessly with these and every science. When it doesn't, it's scramble time for researchers looking for a Nobel Prize, believe me.
Creationism, and it's Trojan horse incarnation, are not theories. They are wishful thinking of fundamentalists and have no bearing on the lives of the majority of progressive Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists (like me).
Slashdot Mirror
Two words. Peer review.
Not to aid the enemy, but science is not about proofs. The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven. No theory can. Theories can only be disproven.
As mentioned before, though, ID is not falsifiable. It is questionable whether the Theory of Evolution is either. If data comes to light that contradicts an element of the theory, the theory will, for lack of a better term, evolve. It is unlikely in the extreme that any observations will seriously impact the bedrock of this theory.
But ID also cannot make predictions. This is also a characteristic of a robust theory. Actually, ID is so flexible, it can predict anything, for if you have a metaphysical element to your "theory", anything is possible. A "theory" that predicts everything in essence tells us nothing, is not a theory.
ID is not universally interwoven with other sciences, another trait of strong theories. ID and creationism regularly contradict biochemistry, archaeology, astrophysics, genetics. The Theory of Evolution works seamlessly with these and every science. When it doesn't, it's scramble time for researchers looking for a Nobel Prize, believe me.
Creationism, and it's Trojan horse incarnation, are not theories. They are wishful thinking of fundamentalists and have no bearing on the lives of the majority of progressive Christians, Jew, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists (like me).