What is Science?

[Prometheus]

I have been listening to the recordings of the Kansas evolution hearings. In general, I find myself disagreeing with the intellegent designer's, but I think they have one good point. They want to change the educational definition of science.

The current definition is:

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

The proposed change is:

"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."


Like I said - I support the second definition. However, I'll save my argument as to why until after we have some poll results.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Prometheus I have been listening to the recordings of the Kansas evolution hearings. In general, I find myself disagreeing with the intellegent designer's, but I think they have one good point. They want to change the educational definition of science. The current definition is: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The proposed change is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Like I said - I support the second definition. However, I'll save my argument as to why until after we have some poll results.

I agree with you on the definition. It is more precise and includes the different facets of what science does and how it does it.

I believe, however, it is the exclusion of "natural explanations" and not the addition of the various facets that is the point of contention with some who want to exclude certain ideas from ID (such as irreducible complexity, a scientifically valid theory) as evidence against evolution from being presented in classrooms, regardless of their scientific and/or educational merit.

While I agree that strict science can only employ naturalistic causation, that it cannot demand them either. If irreducible complexity is true, and I am not saying it is, then, in those cases, scientists should be honest enough to admit that “There is no known naturalistic cause (including decent with modification) that can produce that effect (irreducible complexity)”.