There are a few things that I will directly address as part of my summary.
You either did not understand what i said or you are purposely ignoring it. falsifiability if it is to be understood as a hard fast rule, must have application to any and everything. It can be easily demonstrated that is not necessary for everything.
As many of us have pointed out, scientific theories must be falsifiable. This is known as the null hypothesis. In Dawn's case, the null hypothesis is law, order, and purpose coming about through unintelligent causes. Dawn must be able to describe experimental results that could potentially produce observations consistent with the null hypothesis. Dawn is incapable or refuses to describe these experiments. This is why ID is not scientific. This is why LOP is not evidence of intelligent design.
It gets even better . . .
In this instance it is not necessary to falsify something that is always true
Well, I guess science would be a lot easier if you got to declare your model as true to avoid the scientific method. However, I think this one sentence wraps things up nicely. This one sentence reveals that ID in no uncertain terms. ID is a dogmatic belief, one that is held to be true without ever testing it or challenging it.
Now our (all of ours) investigation, needs to have a conclusion. we cant just stop with the process or model and suggest that a conclusion of the eixstence of things is not necessary
Another example of ID not doing science. Once you have observations the next thing you need is a testable hypothesis and a null hypothesis. This is followed by the development of experiments that can test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Dawn doesn't do that. Dawn skips right to the conclusion. That is not how science works. We don't NEED a conclusion. Science doesn't NEED a conclusion. There are many things in science for which the only answer is "I don't know". What science does need is testable hypotheses.
Speaking from experience, the most difficult part of science is experiments. It is the elegance of your experiments that separates the great scientists from the shlubs. Anyone can come up with an idea (i.e. hypothesis). Anyone can declare by fiat that something is true as Dawn has done. What separates the scientist from the guy shouting on the corner is experimentation. What separates the great experiments from the poor experiments is the way in which they EQUALLY test the hypothesis and null hypothesis.
Since it is clear that no real objections or arguments can be raised against either sides Process or tenative conlcusions from those processes and neither absolute conclusion can be be determined or be determined to be false.
The only logical course of action in such an investigation, by basically the same persons, is to present both positions simply because both are science and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise
This is baloney. The only logical course is to construct experiments that will test both ideas. Scientists have done this with evolution. They have tested it from one side to the other. The theory has passed this testing.
What about ID? As Dawn has illustrated so well, ID is untestable. Whenever we ask Dawn for experiments to test ID it is met with insults, as if we are asking for something so stupid that only someone with 3 frontal lobotomies would even think of asking for these experiments. Dawn is so deeply entrenched into a dogmatic system of belief that the very thought of questioning the conclusion is met with hostility.
At the end of the day, all we need is Dawn's statements that ID can not be tested or falsified. That is enough to demonstrate that ID is not science, and that LOP is not evidence of ID.
So why do I say that LOP is not evidence of ID. Quite simple. ID is not falsifiable. In order for something to be evidence it has to be risky. There has to be a chance that your hypothesis is false, and the experiment has to be capable of producing that falsifiable evidence. For example, a forensic scientist would not cite the mere presence of DNA at the crime scene as an indication of guilt. Instead, the forensic scientist has to amplify specific sections of the DNA and compare it to the defendant's DNA. There is a chance that the two will not match. There is a risk involved. If LOP is going to be cited as evidence of ID then Dawn has to describe experiments where LOP could be shown to come about by natural processes. Until that experiment is described and run then Dawn can not cite LOP as evidence for ID.
Only a fool would suggest that basically the same persons, conducting the same type of valid investigations, coming to demonstratable tenative conlcusions, each claiming they are not conducting science
No one is investigating ID. No one is constructing falsifiable ID hypotheses and testing them through experimentation. You, yourself, deny that anything like this can be done. Hence, no investigation. It is indoctrination. Period.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.