For Herepton and any others interested

I agree that TD is making the wrong argument. Scientists should be open for evidence of anything. The qualifier is that the evidence, if we're talking about scientific evidence, must be objectively and repeatably observable. Objective means that the observation is unaffected by observer bias, and observable means both directly or indirectly observable, meaning that instruments like telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, spectrographs and stethoscopes are valid means of making objective observations. Depending upon the phenomena under study, experiments may need to be very carefully designed.--Percy

Supporters of ID need to design experiments and define sets of observations which lead to the design conclusion indendent of the experimenter, which is the definition of objective. Only then can there be some assurance that the results have some actual correspondence to the real world.--Percy

That there is no agreement on this only highlights my point, which is that the definition of objective experiments/observations are those where the experimenter/observer is not a factor in the subsequent conclusions.--Percy

Science is a concensus activity. In science, objectivity is attained through concensus, where concensus means that a preponderance of scientists are able to achieve the same results from a given set of experiments/observations.The task for intelligent design proponents is to define a set of experiments and/or observations whose results have clear implications independent of the experimenter. When a preponderance of experimenters obtain similar results, then a consensus can develop around which there can be confidence that it is an accurate reflection of reality.But that initial step of defining appropriate experiments and/or observations has not yet been undertaken, and until it is intelligent design will remain unscientific. Man has known since prehistory that the sky is blue, and we don't need science to tell us it is blue, but it can be demonstrated to any skeptic that the sky is blue by a simple spectral analysis. In other words, no matter how obvious it is that the sky is blue, to be considered a scientific reality it must have a scientific basis. So in the same way, if it is a scientific reality that the world is designed, then it must be possible to provide a scientific basis.--Percy

Subjectivity and bias are inherent qualities in all human endeavors. Scientific methodology reduces the influence of subjective factors by factoring in the opinions of many scientists of many backgrounds and of widely varying biases in the expectation that they will balance out so that any resulting consensus has a good chance of being an accurate assessment of reality. As time goes by the consensus extends not only across national, cultural and religious boundaries, but also across temporal boundaries which means more examination and testing and exposure to more scientists, thereby increasing the confidence in the consensus.The task before intelligent design advocates is to design sets of experiments and/or observations whose results can help build a consensus for their ideas across the community of scientists.--Percy