The larger issue for these guys is that even if they came up with some definition of what science is supposed to be, they still can’t make the case for the exclusion for ID because whatever that definition might be will also exclude some things that are considered quite scientific by nearly everyone. The uniformity principle comes to mind here.

The issue for them is their religious zeal for pure conjecture and their profound ignorance of the highest levels of science. The issue before us is that it’s misleading to presuppose that the Intelligent Design movement is right, just because evolutionary biologists are wrong. My assertions are unassailable. Believing scientists should exercise greater care to correctly distinguish between respectable science and outdated hypotheses. Many scientists have discarded the uniformity principle of evolution in favor of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. If you’re referring to geology, neo-catastrophism is becoming very fashionable among geologists. Wikipedia, in their article on catastrophism, states, “Neocatastrophism is the explanation of sudden extinctions in the palaeontological record by high magnitude, low frequency events, as opposed to the more prevalent geomorphological thought which emphasizes low magnitude, high frequency events.” There are favorable opinions there, such as “scientifically based catastrophism has gained wide acceptance with regard to certain events in the distant past.”

The URL is

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-surgery/

(There is a Search function at the top of the UD page. A search for Clouseau coughed up the above.)

So, science is defined by majority rule?

Yes. In fact, all common words are defined by majority rule. And I believe that dictionary.com’s definition of science nicely encapsulates the scientific definition (as defined by the noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature).

You might note that many of the “noteworthy discoverers” of the laws of nature saw science as extension of their Christian theology. Newton and Boyle come to mind here.

I also see the laws of nature as an extension of my Christian theology. And I understand how atheistic scientists, with their theology, interpret the laws of nature. I simply see no major disagreement among preeminent scientists on the definition of science.

The larger issue for these guys is that even if they came up with some definition of what science is supposed to be, they still can’t make the case for the exclusion for ID because whatever that definition might be will also exclude some things that are considered quite scientific by nearly everyone. The uniformity principle comes to mind here.

I believe that I’m consistent in my definition of science and I don’t see any original science in Intelligent Design writings. And I’m not alone. Dr. David Berlinski is “a published critic of intelligent design.” Likewise, his judgment seems to be that Intelligent Design isn’t science:

QUOTE
An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Berlinski shares the movement’s disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: “warm but distant. It’s the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives.”

QUOTE
“Creationism is, as far as I can tell, an empty doctrine,” empty at least of positive evidence for the nature and presence of a Creator-although he finds some of its negative arguments against Darwinism “very good.”

As I see it, DM’s response is no defense unless “the majority of noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature disagree significantly on the definition of science.”

So, science is defined by majority rule? You might note that many of the “noteworthy discoverers” of the laws of nature saw science as extension of their Christian theology. Newton and Boyle come to mind here.

The authors of this petition want to appeal to a defintion of science in order to justify their condemnation of ID as not science. As I see it, the the fact there is no widely accepted agreed upon definition of science to which they can appeal makes their case for the exclusion of ID pretty darned weak!

The larger issue for these guys is that even if they came up with some definition of what science is supposed to be, they still can’t make the case for the exclusion for ID because whatever that definition might be will also exclude some things that are considered quite scientific by nearly everyone. The uniformity principle comes to mind here.

The simple fact of the matter is that all appeals to some definition of what science is are highly unsuccessful at excluding just ID while preserving other principles that most consider necessary to science. That fact alone makes this whole petition an exersize in silliness.

DonaldM didn’t use those exact words but are you sure that the given conclusion can’t be inferred?

DM quoted this criticism of the ID movement:

“Science can be defined as the process of using empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses in the effort to increase our understanding of the world around us. ID seeks to answer many of the same questions about life on Earth that science does. However, the two differ drastically in that ID invokes supernatural explanations to explain natural processes, while science explains natural processes using empirical data. As the study of ID does not involve the use of empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses, it cannot be considered a science under any circumstances.”

Let’s assume that DM’s rebuttal is valid:

“Someone needs to tell these guys that there simply is no widely accepted, widely agreed upon definition of what science is, so invoking a particular one to justify their animus against ID isn’t all that helpful.”

As I see it, DM’s response is no defense unless “the majority of noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature disagree significantly on the definition of science.”

My guess is that my inability to grasp what you are saying is not all that important.

Best regards…

There is no question that evolutionary biology is a quasi-science. Another problem is that DonaldM has repudiated sensible definitions of science by asserting that the majority of noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature disagree significantly on the definition of science.

So you consider such disciplines as evolutionary biolgy as a quasi-science?

I agree with you insofar as it certainly isn’t following what “the discoverers of the laws of nature” were following.

Science shouldn’t be defined simply as “a search for truth” unless you want “social science” to classed with the real sciences.

There is no question that unnecessary assumptions plague the quasi-sciences. The fact remains that science is best defined as whatever the discoverers of the laws of nature, i.e., what the noteworthy scientists, say science is.