Scientists *must* have a theory.

[bob b]

"Scientists sometimes (as is well known) continue to work with a theory which they themselves know is false. Laymen, when they hear of such a case, are apt to be audibly critical of the scientists' conduct; but of course they have no better theory to suggest, and the only result is, that the scientists grow angry and impatient with their lay critics. But these features of scientists' behaviour are not ones which deserve esteem, and still less, imitation. They are departures from rational behavior, not forms of it. They arise only because professional scientists, without the guidance of some theory, however unsatisfactory, do not know what to do with themselves."

(Who said this?)

 

[asilentskeptic]

"Scientists sometimes (as is well known) continue to work with a theory which they themselves know is false. Laymen, when they hear of such a case, are apt to be audibly critical of the scientists' conduct; but of course they have no better theory to suggest, and the only result is, that the scientists grow angry and impatient with their lay critics. But these features of scientists' behaviour are not ones which deserve esteem, and still less, imitation. They are departures from rational behavior, not forms of it. They arise only because professional scientists, without the guidance of some theory, however unsatisfactory, do not know what to do with themselves."

(Who said this?)

David Stove
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php (3/26/06 has info in him and the quote)

 

[eisenreich]

"Scientists sometimes (as is well known) continue to work with a theory which they themselves know is false. Laymen, when they hear of such a case, are apt to be audibly critical of the scientists' conduct; but of course they have no better theory to suggest, and the only result is, that the scientists grow angry and impatient with their lay critics. But these features of scientists' behaviour are not ones which deserve esteem, and still less, imitation. They are departures from rational behavior, not forms of it. They arise only because professional scientists, without the guidance of some theory, however unsatisfactory, do not know what to do with themselves."

(Who said this?)

ID proponents are finally starting to catch up! Nick Matzke recently drafted a report in the Interdisciplinary Bible Research Institute with a specific Intelligent Design hypothesis that uses "Intelligent Design theory" to explain such phenomena as parasitic ichneumonid wasps and the panda's thumb. You'll be able to get an idea of the nature of the explanation from the title alone:

"Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents."

The point to be made here is this: organisms which possess incredible complexity beyond what natural selection could "design" from the available offerings of chance, and which also seem to be clearly malevolent, might well be the work of malevolent spirit beings. There are, of course, other possibilities. They may be the direct or indirect work of God and we are mistaken in viewing them as malevolent. They might be the work of non-spiritual intelligences (extra-terrestrials). I cannot see any other alternatives that are consistent with a biblical theism.