Intelligent Design explains many follies

I think information about topics like this is just what people are looking for from you. Though evolution has nothing to do with cosmology and "how the existing universe started from something smaller than a pinhear", it is still very relevant to this topic to understand how ID explains the origin of the universe. For example, you might start by providing the ID explanation for the red shift and accelerating expansion. And in the same way as for cosmology, it would be very helpful to understand ID's explanation for "how life developed into incredibly complex plan, animal and human life forms." For example, you could provide ID's explanation for how life first came about, and how ID changes the DNA in organisms over time to cause speciation.--Percy

It's not like there's one theory of ID. IDist views vary quite a bit, and I think it's more the case that we don't yet know your personal views on ID. And how could we if you don't tell us? Well, okay, but what is the scientific foundation for this? Take me through the process:

• Hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer designed the red shift and accelerating expansion.
• Experiment: What experiments were designed and carried out?
• Results: What was the outcome of the experiments?

I would again ask the same question: what were the experiments and the outcomes of these experiments that established this.And there's another closely related and very important question. What experiments and experimental results are there that establish the correctness of your view of life's origins versus the views of other IDists, such as Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, who believes that the Designer influences life through modifications of DNA, thereby guiding evolution.In other words, and as I alluded earlier, IDists are not all of one view. What establishes your ID views as the correct ones? I didn't ask why. That's not a scientific question. How can you say this, given that this is precisely what a very large segment of IDists believe?--Percy

I think it would help if you removed the word "prove" from your vocabulary. I'm sure this has been said before, but nothing is ever proven in science. We can only build theories based upon evidence. Theories are not proven, only supported by evidence.The difference between evolution and ID is that there's evidence supporting evolution, while there's no evidence supporting ID. If I'm wrong about this then, similar to what I asked before, please walk me through this process:

1. Hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet.
   ​
2. Experiments and/or observations: What experiments were designed and carried out, what observations were attempted?
   ​
3. Results: What was the outcome of the experiments and observationss, and how did they support ID?

--Percy

This discussion is in somewhat of a roundabout. Hopefully it won't be too much a distraction from the main topic if I asked how you reconcile the above error with this from your Message 144: Physics and engineering both make intensive use of math and probability, and your basic math error seems inconsistent with such a background. Maybe if we understood your background in a little better detail it would help the discussion make progress. Are there any other details you'd be willing to provide?If it helps, I'll go first. I have a Bachelors of Electrical Engineering from the University of Delaware, a Masters of Computer Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon, and a year of work on a PhD thesis that I was never able to muster much enthusiasm for. I've been working in the electronic design automation industry for about 30 years in both management and individual contributor roles. My most public role was several years spent as chairperson of a standards committee with responsibility for a portion of the timing analysis sub-discipline.--Percy

You lifted this with minor edits somewhere off the Internet - I found it at a bunch of sites.While abiogenesis researchers would agree on a progression of some sort, I doubt there would be much agreement on a specific sequence like that one. For instance, there's a lot of debate about whether replication or metabolism came first. Further, while it's a good example of one way it might have happened, it is far, far too undetailed to calculate any probabilities.You seem to believe that ID will succeed by discrediting its competitor. But ID is not a competitor to evolution. It isn't even a theory. It's only an idea, and a religious one at that. In order to demonstrate ID's scientific foundation you have to describe the scientific evidence for ID. I hope that you will at some point walk us through this process:

1. Form a hypothesis: An Intelligent Designer is responsible for life on this planet.
   ​
2. Experiments and/or observations: What experiments were designed and carried out, what observations were attempted?
   ​
3. Results: What was the outcome of the experiments and observations, and how did they support ID?

--Percy

In my experience, if you talk to an IDist who is conscious of the necessity to promote ID as a strictly scientific discipline, then the views espoused will be as you describe.Most other IDists, including many of those described above when they feel they're safely in a religious venue or at least are not in the limelight, will blather on about a young earth and the fallacy of radiometric dating and all the other creationist nonsense. And the identity of the designer previously characterized as not relevant to ID research will be freely described as the God of the Christian Bible.--Percy