<<If you disagree with my point that design does not provide mechanistic
hypothesis on which to design experiments, then please explain why rather
than resort to this ad hominem crap.>>
Where did I attack you personally, Steve? Did I make you the subject of a
message recently? Have I accused you of flinging "crap"? C'mon.
<<I'm not going to debate my ideas with you as long as you keep this up.>>
It seems so. I've noticed that when you're vigorously challenged you fall into
invective. That's not debate. May I recommend the style of my friend Glenn
Morton? We disagree vigorously, often to the point of ribbing each other, but
he responds to the points made. And with good humor, too.
SC <<This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses.>>
JB
>Wow, this is the first time I've heard it argued that testing hypotheses
>yields no data!
SC <Given the utter lack of connection between what I actually said and the
way...
Didn't I anticipate just this answer? I wrote:
<<Anticipating a rueful answer that this is just a rhetorical "trick," let me
assure you I am in absolute earnest here.>>
You can't say you're not predictable. I then went on to expand the point:
<<The substantial geological data that
has been gathered yields a fairly "rock solid" conclusion. How can it be
otherwise? You test, you get more information. That sort of testing has not
happened in biological evolution. I'll grant you a giant "YET," but I won't
grant you the spurious idea that "testing hypotheses" is unrelated to
gathering information. Perhaps you wrote in haste.>>
I talked about conclusory data. You said that's not science, testing
hypotheses is. I asked what it is that testing yields. Is it not data? Is it
not information? When you gather enough data--i.e., consistent experiemental
results--has not the data reached a conclusory peak? That is when science
declares something a LAW. Or a FACT. It has reached a conclusion (always
subject to revision, of course). So how is this wrong?
Jim