It's science Bill because it extends things.
The rules for science theories are really simple there are exactly two
Here is the reference (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Look at Essential criteria there are two rules:
1.) It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
2.) It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Those two rules are set in stone by all science organisation because of what they do, expand science ever outwards.
Intelligent Design, PreEarths theory and Finiters Theory may meet essential criteria 2, we would have to look at that as a seperate issue.
However they all fail criteria 1. The net effect of failing criteria one is we would be contracting science, stuff that is currently explainable and calculatable suddenly isn't accepted or explainable?????.
Science does not allow itself to go backwards it is the number 1 rule and not open for discussion.
Lets take a wild leap Intelligent Design, Finiters and Preearth theories basis behind there theory could even be correct. They can't be totally correct because they can't explain some observations. So science simple sides on the one that can explain more.
Thus Intelligent Design, PreEarths theory and Finiters theory may be limitedly correct (although I really doubt all 3 as we haven't applied test 2 yet). They still are not scientific and can not be taught as science because they create contraction in knowledge. There job if they want to become science is to expand out and extend science.
If you like many theories are born non scientific and only when they expand out to meet and expand science can they become scientific.
We can even have scientific discussions about ideas in Intelligent Design, Finiters Theory and PreEarth theories and in general any new theory goes through that process.
They cross the line when they try and say they are scientific what they have breached in doing that is rule 1 of scientific theories.
Go back to the finiter thread
Finiter => I have a theory about the universe.
Science => absolutely no problem there, shoot.
Finiter => QM doesn't exist.
Science => Umm ok so what explains all the QM stuff
Finiter => I don't know some alternate explaination someone will work it out
Science => ummm ok so this isn't a science theory then.
Finiter => Yes it is now lets talk about the definition of science.
Science => Umm no not up to you and I to define science
Finiters theories problem is it denies QM and does not fix the observations and calculations it can never become science it is in the same boat as Intelligent Design.
Now go back up to the article above from John Cardy he created a scientific theory. It was always a scientific theory because it expanded science outwards. All current observations still work under the new theory so the only question that then remained was does it add in new observations to prove itself. It does so it can overturn the old theory because it explains all the current observations and adds new ones in .. that is it expands science.
So whenever you look at a theory ask yourself does this expand our knowledge, if yes then it is scientific, no it contracts it then that theory is not scientific. Remembering here we are assuming we have observations and experiments to verify it is true, it can't be just made up.
