Forensic science isn't just about ascertaining if a death has been caused by design. It is about ascertaining exactly how a person died, whether it was murder or accident.
So its scope is larger than what my question implies. That's OK with me. I don't think that changes the issue for me.
However, detecting intelligent design in biological systems can be a scientific process.
I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science.
The point is that no intelligent design has been scientifically detected in biological systems.
That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?
Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space? Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time? Or should some continue to explore the possibilities?
If we were doing it scientifically (as in forensic science) we'd have to describe a process that would lead to the final result (the evidence). So far the ID movement, which you allude to, has been unable to describe a feasable and repeatable process that could interact in a predictable fashion to the development of life.
This is a little allusive to me being a laymen. Rather than saying "Yes Sir. Whatever you say." I'll try to look more into this "feasability" / "repeatability" matter.
I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory.
Until they describe a natural process then what they do isn't science.
The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?
Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total? Does the shortage of a complete description of star formation make astro physics not a science?
I have asked MIT science students to describe exactly the natural process by which one piece of magnetized metal comes together with another piece of magnetized metal. They described proximities and distances and formulas to predict when the attraction will take place.
Then I pressed them further as to why these two pieces of metal move towards each other. I was told that on a "low level" they do not yet know why it happens.
Does that make research into electro magnetism not a science because the natural process of magnetism is not yet completely described?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.