Does ID follow the scientific method?

Why should they do your work for you?

MESSAGE 224 My mistake has not been fully recognizing the HUGE distinction you and others are making between the scientific method, and mere secularism. In the beginnings of the ID movement, it was rejected as science solely on religious grounds. It’s been fairly effortless for ID proponents to show the details of its work to be secular, (that’s some of what I’ve been doing in this thread, Dawn too) but the thread title uses the words scientific method, and that’s obviously being defined as a lot more than just a disconnect from religion. I’ll work on that. Much of what you seem to take exception to in my posts is my responses to evolutionist posters who are clearly trying to draw me off topic. It just seems to me that they shouldn’t be posting here either, but it’s your forum. Didn’t you move this thread to the Free For All forum so that it would have just a little more flexibility? I’ll abbreviate those types of responses from here on, but some I can’t resist. I’ll do that. You might want to just go ahead and do that anyway, because if you don’t this could turn out to be the biggest display of goalpost moving by evolutionists that EvC forums has ever seen._________________MESSAGE 91My fellow Kentuckian; Four lines? I can’t reduce it to just four lines, but I’ll make it as brief as possible - how about.....nine lines? Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm (theory) for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles.This appears to me (as a non scientist / I'll link below to where I condensed this from) to be a combination of two things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. I suspect it worked for about....20 minutes after being tossed to the wolves, then the goalposts were moved.__________________MESSAGE 233 As I can equally assure you that biological studies within an ID framework can be done without violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, or following any religious rituals or doctrines. We’ll never believe each other, so there we are. But the least I can do is explain exactly why I don’t believe that all (evolutionist) scientists want to know everything about DNA sequences, even if that knowledge cripples their beloved naturalistic worldview. He knows, and I made clear, that Behe wasn’t the one suggesting such a vague and subjective test, it was Coyne and Orr who were suggesting it. Two scientists/authors that are in opposition to ID. He’s trolling, and practically no evolutionist on forums such as this would ever acknowledge it. Neither would most any of the big heavies in the scientific community, such as Dawkins, Myers, or Provine. I can tell by remembering their arrogant smirks in the movie Expelled. This kind of ridiculousness gets winks and nods from everyone in mainstream science — no one asks him where in any official description of ID he gets this nonsense. A specific function? A general hypothesis isn’t good enough? Here is a page full of general ones, I assume when they became public, the goalposts moved to a specific function. Chances are the Discovery Institute has it, but hasn’t released it to the wolves yet, because they know the goalposts will move to several specific functions. Then when there are several, there will never be enough.

A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should get the idea across. I’m sure the goalposts have already been moved beyond it, but for a time, however short, it was the scientific method. __________________________MESSAGE 244 ID thought processes are diverse, and many ID proponents can think for themselves. They don’t have to blindly fall in line behind a leader like Richard Dawkins. New knowledge about the cell has come to light only in recent decades, and the ID movement is young. The atheist rabble making a lot of noise about Darwin in the late 1800’s is well documented.____________________MESSAGE 259 I'll take my medicine like a MAN, and this Thursday I'll give THANKS for it!

Hello Thylacosmilus Recent discoveries in the simplest forms of life now show that the initial information content in DNA and living proteins rather than being small must in fact be large, for any evolutionary process to work to begin with. Information in the cell could possibly arise in a top-down fashion (where intelligence is already present) rather than the emergent bottom-up fashion of Darwinism. The tracing of pathways towards new organization and machines, whilst obeying all the laws of thermodynamics, consistently shows that new machinery requires a pre-existence of intelligence from an outside source. The results of this testing can be applied to DNA, since the basic coding is the cause, rather than the consequence, thus the top-down approach gives another scientific paradigm for understanding the molecular machinery which is consistent with known thermodynamic principles.This appears to me (as a non scientist) to be a combination of two scientific things that don’t go on in mainstream science; 1) a challenge to certain parts of evolutionary theory, and 2) an exploration into the origins of life, which the scientific community constantly assures us has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. My responses to your four lines above were condensed from one on this list of peer reviewed work. A.C. McIntosh, Information and Entropy, about 1/3 down the page. A raggedy abbreviation by me no doubt, but it should make clear that his more detailed peer-reviewed article would clearly and thoroughly address every one of your four steps. How many phases of standards are in the scientific method? Are there bare minimums, medium level, and high level standards? This thread’s central focus is this; Message 15Most posters in this thread, yourself included, are posting here because they, like the scientific community in general, believe that the ID methodology does not follow the scientific method. Yet we haven’t seen any real attempt by anyone here from that position to concisely define exactly what the scientific method is. Shouldn’t the scientific method be clearly defined, with a commonly used, predictable, unchanging meaning? Most scientists, but not all? Why not all? A start for what? A political decision? A re-evaluation of what the scientific method actually is?Another central focus of the thread, contained in the above quote by the thread starter is teachable in the science classroom. In other discussions on forums such as these, I’ve been told that what is teachable in the science classroom isn’t political, isn’t a democracy, that it should be left up only to the scientific community, since they are the most qualified to know what science actually is. Don’t you think they should be able to provide a clear definition for what the scientific method actually is? Something unchangeable? Something with one phase, instead of three or more?