This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses. It even works
when the favorite hypothesis is found to be lacking, but experiments are
still designed using the parameters set by this insufficient hypothsis.
This sort of thing occurs when there is no compelling counter hypothesis. I
can think of two examples here. One, has to do with how the immune system
recognizes foreign molecules but not molecules in its own body (Zinkernagle
and Doherty won this year's nobel prize for this research). The other
example has to do with early models of the gene. For awhile, people kept
using the hypothesis that genes were proteins even though there was
compelling evidence from Oswald Avery that genetic traits could be
transmitted by nucleic acids. In order to get science (in this case
evolutionists) to use accept and give up old, inadequate hypotheses requires
that ANOTHER, BETTER HYPOTHESIS come along. Simply pointing to data that
are inconsistent for a given hypothesis is not sufficient to induce the
Kuhnian-type of paradigm shift. Also, pointing out that certain experiments
have not been performed is also not sufficient to cause a paradigm shift.
Intelligent design does not provide any testable hypothesis regarding HOW
COMPLEX STRUCTURES CAME INTO EXISTENCE. I'll paraphrase Jim's words here
and say that "The LACK is in the...explanation for the machinery." I bet
that there is not a single paper in any of the journals Behe scrutinized
that describes HOW intelligent design could explain HOW complex structures
arose.
The problem here is two fold. 1) design is not a mechanistic hypothesis.
Rather it is a metaphysical world-view. 2) Design is not inconsistent with
evolution, because evolution, properly considered, is a mechanistic
hypothesis and not a metaphysical world-view. An omnipotent designer could
create via evolution. This is the crux of the EC position.
>But the theory of evolution is nowhere near the rocks in the data game. Good
>scientists will adopt "wait and see."
You can't do science without an hypothesis to test. In the absence of a
good alternative, evolution remains the hypothesis that is tested whether it
is right or wrong. Either way, the information gained from testing the
hypothesis will, sooner or later, likely provide us with reason to more
fully embrace it or to replace it with an alternative. This is not done by
a "wait and see" approach.
Steve
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
Ya gotta pay yer dues if ya wanna sing the blues, and ya know it don'
come easy.
____________________________________________________________