Evolution, Theories and debunking ID

[matgb]

In my post about Darwin Tuesday I said: if you need a bit more explanation, ask a skientist, I recommend Debi the evolutionary morphologist and for damn fine reason.

Debi Linton - On Intelligent Design:

This week, however, I have been asked to give a basic run down of the I.D. milarkey from the point of view of an evolutionary scientist, and who am I to refuse to write about evolution?

( About Science and Religion )

( Evolution is only a Theory )

( Creationism/Intelligent design is also a theory )

( Evolution and abiogenesis )

( And a YouTube vid )

Making the serious point that Evolution fulfills the serious requirements to be defined as a Theory, namely that a) it is predictive and b) it can be disproved. Intelligent Design cannot be defined as a theory because a) it is not predictive and b) it cannot be disproved ^[1]. The post contains some very (very) good explanation about what science is (and is not), and makes the solid point that the scientific method can only work with the world as it is, not as we might like it to be. This post is another prime example of why I love the ease of publication that blogging gives us, anyone can be a pamphleteer, and when someone, anyone, writes good content, that post can be picked up, linked to, and the ideas can spread. And spread. Yes, that is a hint to everyone.

I'm, unusually for me, closing comments on this post; Debi welcomes comments and questions, she promises not to bite (ms_ntropy might object), and it'd be good to keep the discussion in one place. Go read, talk, question, discuss.

---

[1] I've read some speculation that some Quantum theorists may, or may not, be working on a method to prove the existence of a higher, guiding power, based around disproving the parallel universes theory. I have no clue or links about that one, but what I read (in comments elsewhere and I've done no research on it) was intriguing to say the least.