Isn't that what the ID proponents say?

Yes, but they're lying about it. ID makes no predictions, and there's simply no experiment or observation that can be done to confirm or disprove "...or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."

(Unlike quantum physics, where we mostly just have to keep building bigger particle accelerators, and hope that the guys trying to make wormholes don't accidentally destroy the fabric of space-time.)

I heard that NPR story on the other universes last night (vaguely, through cooking and dishes and shrieking children and so forth) and I was just thinking, "Isn't it a BAD idea to try to create a black hole in a lab in Switzerland, no matter how tiny?" Success would be - problematic.

"Isn't it a BAD idea to try to create a black hole in a lab in Switzerland, no matter how tiny?" Success would be - problematic.

I know, right? Did none of these people read Earth?

I'd be going outside my domain to decide if string theory is really a string hypothesis, Cindy. Call it faith (and if you call accepting unproven theories as axioms faith, there certainly is faith in science--but it is faith that's kinda waiting to be verified or falsified, which separates it from religious faith) if you will.

Often, the unspoken thought underlying experiments is "I wonder what would happen if I do this...." It's fun!

OK, speaking of which, I can now see the picture my brother sent me. My nephew, in a lab coat at a lab bench, holding what look like pill or specimen bottles in each tiny fist, complete with a mad scientist "AH HAHAHAH" expression on his face. AWESOME.

I have achieved cat #2, and am eating lunch. Next up, laundry.

The temperature here is very much like what I left. Except everything is gray. It's depressing!

I should be ashamed of how pleased I am that "Hungry Like the Wolf" just popped up on my iPod.

Isn't that what the ID proponents are doing?

I don't think anybody is trying to a) teach string theory (or the like) in physics 101; b) declaring that it invalidates more conventional and established understandings of physics in 101; or c) trying to prevent the teaching of physics 101 in the name of string theory.

I should be ashamed of how pleased I am that "Hungry Like the Wolf" just popped up on my iPod.

Is it a lunchtime thing or a Duran Duran thing?

Oh, btw, the new episode of that thing has popped up. And I never asked if you got to see the other ep before Thanksgiving.

My eBay seller wrote back, and yes, of course, she had two identical pairs. Phew!

I seriously don't think anyone would notice if I just took a nap right here, so maybe....

The problem with ID is that it has been conclusively debunked and yet its proponents still persist in claiming it is a valid scientific theory. At the time it was proposed, it was interesting and took a while to bring down. But now many, many people have shown the flaws in the theory. The people behind ID still don't acknowledge those criticisms. At that point they're no longer doing science.

ETA: here's an overview of some of the scientific stuff in ID: [link]

Thanks, bon bon. It's funny to see that again, because I read that article when it came out (or thereabouts), and re-read it, within the last month or so (and just re-read it, now). I think Orr does a good job, in it.

Of course, and it's right around where both sides lose me (because I don't have much scientific curiosity—and know that's a flaw in my personality). There are then rebuttals of much of what Orr says, including one by Dembski [link] and another by some college ID club (or whatever) [link] It then all gets over my head, and I start feeling like everyone is probably twisting, turning, and spinning, because of their biases.

I'm not a huge fan of Gould's NOMA, because I think it's leaning toward cop-out, and yet, it's (practically speaking) where I end up, when things get over my head.

I'd be going outside my domain to decide if string theory is really a string hypothesis, Cindy.

I think String theory is probably not better termed String hypothesis, because of the maths. I didn't realize that's specifically what you were referring to, in previous comment.

Call it faith (and if you call accepting unproven theories as axioms faith, there certainly is faith in science--but it is faith that's kinda waiting to be verified or falsified, which separates it from religious faith) if you will.

Eh. I'm waiting for my religious faith to be, if not verified, then proven. I just think it will happen after, and a lot of cool science I'm waiting for will probably happen, too, like the discovery of how transplanting some of my body fat will cure someone's cancer, AIDS, and road rage.

Yes, but they're lying about it. ID makes no predictions, and there's simply no experiment or observation that can be done to confirm or disprove "...or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."

I just don't think that's what they're (all) claiming (in all cases). I think that's an oversimplification that's above the subject, which is pretty much what kept me from posting, "The FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WAS BOWLING," in response to whoever's link about parallel universes colliding or whatever it was I read here, last week.