I’m glad you reminded me of the ether story. That’s an excellent example of a popular theory that was discarded as contradictory evidence came in. I think you’re right about how the creationists would have clung desparately to it, despite all contradictory data (This is, of course, what they do with ID. It’s ironic, because this is exactly what they accuse real scientists of with evolutionary theory.).

Intelligent Design creationism is a defeatist attitude. The ID creationists will study a problem right up to the point where it becomes difficult, then they throw in the towel and say “goddidit”. That type of “science” will never advance our knowledge.

The major flaw in any “creation science” as I see it is that the IDers/Creationists have an agenda. They already know the answers they want to see so they fit the data to make those answers plausible.

Real scientists accept experimental data even if it contradicts common knowledge. My favorite example of this is the Michelson–Morley experiment. Michelson and Morley spent years trying to confirm the presence of the aether that was supposed to permeate the universe. Their experiments ultimately failed and forced physicists to create a new theory of an aetherless universe. The end result was the theory of relativity.

Nobody had to die for it. No one built museums dedicated to aether theory. scientists just accepted the new data and moved on to a better understanding of the universe. A creationist probably would have invoked the hand of god and said he was speeding/slowing the beams of light to explain why the aether wasn’t detected.

Real scientists are much better at asking probing questions that find the limits of current knowledge. Most of the so-called questions and objections that the creationists come up with are actually misunderstandings, misinterpretations, mischaracterizations, or outright deceptions on the part of the creationists.

Nevertheless, anybody is entitled to ask questions of science. That’s how the laymen learn (if they’re actually willing to listen to the answers).

They may have the wrong answers but they are asking the right questions. Isn’t that what science is all about?

Thanks for the nod. I’m sure some better-qualified individuals can come up with some other predictions of ID that have similarly been proven wrong, and critique and improve my own, but I’ve done what I can.

Yes, I saw that exchange. Pretty bad. That is a typical ploy. They’re steering the discussion away from the parts they can’t answer.

Maybe the only way to leave a comment on those sites is to do it in one or two sentences. Sure, they can still dodge the issue, but it is much more apparent.

“Corn, your choice of D and E abortions (as “science?”) speaks volumes, actually. “Science” is about killing kids and “philosophy” is about the oddd views of people who are upset by the fact that one does it?”

“As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.”

WOW. Do they miss the point entirely because they are stupid, or are they playing dumb and playing on people’s emotions to change the subject?

I’m honestly not sure.

Sure, ignore the entire previous 10 paragraphs to focus in on your key heart-string issue. Excellent science.