The AAS tells it like it is

The American Astronomical Society has come out in favor of teaching evolution in public schools and against teaching intelligent design as science. This in and of itself is not surprising. However, the AAS statement gives one of the most succinct descriptions of what a scientific theory is and why ID is not a scientific theory:
Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design,” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
I'm just too longwinded. I wish I could have boiled it down to its essence so nicely.


  1. Part of the reason why things like Intelligent Design appeal to people is the inability to fathom things like the vastness of the universe or the expanse of geologic time.
    To be sure, we have invented terms to deal with this, but that doesn't make it any easier to understand billions of years in time or thousands of light-years distant.

  2. I've been slowly working my way through Behe's _Darwins Black Box_ and what astounds me is the amount of time spent finding fault in every little tiny detail in evolution then flat out saying that scientists have to PROVE all those details otherwise it isn't science.

    Hello? Why is it that Darwinian followers have to account for every detail in order for it to be science, yet Intelligent Design doesn't account for ANYTHING and it IS science?

  3. Speaking of stars... Orac, buzz over to the Onion and read "I'm Not Surprised Hitler Was A Taurus", it's right up your alley.

    "Eva Braun's sign was Aquarius. I imagine that was a rocky relationship! Aquarius rocks the boat, and Taurus doesn't like that one bit! Which I guess explains why her marriage to Hitler was so short."

    Heh heh heh:)

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts