Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
All philosophy fails to provide any sort of useful predictions in a scientific sense.
|
Philosophy, being subject to logic, is not untestable. The sort of predictions you are talking about (it actually does make other predictions), it can't make because it's not about the empirical nature of physical reality. That's besides the point, however, since it's testable in another way, one that is more suited to its nature. (just like you would test mathematical theories by mathematical and logical analysis, rather than physical predictions)
Creationism, whether the traditional kind or the intelligent design kind, speaks about purely physical aspects of physical reality. It fails, however, to make any predictions or even to be testable in any physical way. Worse, it defies logic as well, and thereby places itself entirely out of the realm of rationality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
That's probally why it's not called science.  |
Most of its proponents actually do call it science, and present it as an alternative to common scientific theories.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
What would that competative theory be?
|
Have you missed the entire discussion?