The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

I don't understand what Jim Ryan considers to be a concession to ID (2/14). ID is not science because it doesn't meet the standards of science. It is a worthless assertion, that has no utility at this time, and there is no credible evidence that it will ever make it into the realm of science and be a contender for any spot in bettering our understanding of nature. It survives in a narrow space occupied by other nonsense notions of equivalent value that we can't seem to falsify to the extent that the proponents will give up. It could be "true" but ID has a long way to go before they can convince anyone that they are even on the right track.

This is just the way that science has to work. ID isn't part of science because they can't bring their ideas up to a minimum standard that would allow science to evaluate their ideas. From past experience with other ID claims science is justified in saying that this ID claim will also fail. We can't verify if it is a failure or not until we can test the idea. As long as ID proponents can't come up with any testable assertions science can't comment on the validity of the idea. The fact that they can't come up with any testable assertions or think of any utility for their ideas should tell anyone that ID is more likely a crock than a valid hypothesis. Where is the concession in demonstrating that this is the case? This is just the way that science works. How can science falsify a notion that can't be tested at this time? Why would anyone take a notion seriously if there is no way to verify it and every like minded idea that has been tested in the past has failed? This is the position that ID is in. That isn't a concession that is just reality.

: -- Ron Okimoto, Asst. Prof., Univ. of Arkansas (posted 2/14, 2:05 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.

APE-MEN
Our biological beastliness spawned our cultural greatness. But can our biological greatness save us from our cultural beastliness, asks David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington. (Password required; how to get one.)
(Illustration by Courtney Granner)