So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

In Message 296 of the should creationism be taught in schools? topic, I responded to Beretta thus, but the thread closed before he responded: I hereby call upon Beretta to respond with his description of how this "paradigm shift" that he's pushing for and in full support of is supposed to produce a new science that actually works. I call upon Beretta to describe this brave new science that he wants to impose upon us and to demonstrate that it would work.Of course, if any other ID advocates would like to contribute, they would be more than welcome.Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.In Message 245 I wrote: In Message 250, Beretta replied: I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "(SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)" to topic title.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

* bump *

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

bluegenes, does that mean that the world was obviously designed ... by committee?You know, that would explain a lot!{grin}

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

I keep remembering the beginning of Doctor No, though since I had read the book over 35 years ago I forget whether this scene was in the book, the movie, or both (and although I had speed-read the DC comic version of the movie in the grocery store, I also do not remember whether the scene was in it as well). In his previous assignment (which, in the book, was From Russia With Love), Bond had almost been killed and M blamed it on his choice of weapon, a Beretta, which M disparaged as being too under-powered, "a woman's weapon", and at which time they upgraded him to, I believe, a Walther PPK (Polizeipistole, Kriminal).M's disparaging assessment of the Beretta's performance keeps coming to mind as I watch you flail helplessly.Beretta, you are yet again avoiding the question. The question is: So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? It's not asking about creationism, nor is it asking about "creation science". It is specifically asking about ID.Yet, even though you have elsewhere insisted that ID is not creationism, here you are answering a question about ID with pure creationism. Shall we take that as your admission that ID is indeed just creationism in a slightly different disguise? Or at least you are using ID as a feeble attempt at smoke-screening creationism into the public schools. At the very least, it exposes you as a "cdesign proponentist"{*}, a creationist who is trying to use ID to play "Hide the Creationism".{* FOOTNOTE: That term comes from "smoking gun" evidence presented in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case). When drafts of the book, Of Pandas and People, were examined, it had started out as a creationist text, but then exactly when the Edwards decision came down (the case involving the Louisiana "balanced treatment" law, which exposed to the US Supreme Court that "creation science" is purely religious} it suddenly turned into a "intelligent design" book. In their rush to change all references to creationists into references to "design proponents", they botched their Find-and-Replace word processor command, producing something like "cdesign proponentist". Clear and blatant evidence of "Hide the Creationism" in action.}Specifically pertinent to the question is the line of questioning regarding ID's goal of requiring science to include supernaturalistic explanations, specifically the "explanation" of "Goddidit". Specifically:
Exactly how do they intend science's methodology of hypothesis building and testing to function with the requirement that it include "Goddidit"?
Just how exactly are we supposed to test "Goddidit", as the current methodology requires?
Just exactly how is "Goddidit" supposed to raise new questions which help to direct new research, something that science depends very heavily upon and which is readily and amply provided by the current methodology?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not serve as show-stopping dead-end to all scientific investigation?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not kill science?To repeat my question at the end of the OP in referenct to statements made in the now-closed should creationism be taught in schools? topic: That is the question, which you avoided. Please keep on topic this time.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Examine the evidence. In the lecture notes from their two-model class at San Diego State University, Evolution vs Creation by Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T) (Aztec Lecture Notes, 1981, page 25), A&T compare 27 features of birds, Archaeopteryx, and Coelurosaurs:
In two features, all three groups were the same (eyes having sclerotic ring and scapulae having same shape).In two other features, birds and Archaeopteryx were the same and different from Coelurosaurs (body covered with feathers and fused clavicles [wishbone]).In 17 other features, Archaeopteryx is different from birds and the same as the coelurosaurs (femur, fibula, sternum, ribs, gastralia, cervical vertebra type, caudals, vertebral column, humerus, ulna, carpometacarpus, teeth, palate, snout (instead of a beak), occipital condyle and foramen magnum, anteorbital and external mandibular skull openings, and external nostril openings near the tip of the snout (instead of near the eyes).In 6 other features, Archaeopteryx is intermediate between birds and Coelurosaurs; those features are:
- Metatarsals:
....Flying Birds -- Fused
....Archaeopteryx -- Partly fused
....Coelurosaurs -- Little fused- Bones:
....Flying Birds --Hollow, pneumatic
....Archaeopteryx -- Hollow, not pneumatic
....Coelurosaurs -- Some hollow, not pneumatic- Coracoids
....Flying Birds -- Long, narrower, free
....Archaeopteryx -- Wider, rounded, fused to scapula
....Coelurosaurs -- Widest, rounded, fused to scapula- Pelvis
....Flying Birds -- Elements fused together and to vertebral column to form rigid synsacrum. Pubis rearward-projecting.
....Archaeopteryx -- Unfused, simple, triradiate. Pubis slightly forward-projecting
....Coelurosaurs -- As in Archaeopteryx, Pubis more forward-projecting- Orbits
....Flying Birds -- Large, incompletely surrounded by bone
....Archaeopteryx -- Smaller. Bony surround complete (?)
....Coelurosaurs -- Smallest. Bony surround complete.- Braincase:
....Flying Birds -- Greatly expanded, extensively fused
....Archaeopteryx -- Moderately expanded, fusion less complete
....Coelurosaurs -- Not expanded, not fusedSo Archaeopteryx is 2-27ths bird (7.4%), 17-27ths coelurosaur (63%), and 6-27ths transisitional between the birds and coelurosaurs (22%). The two bird characterstics are used to classify it as "bird", but the evidence clearly shows that creationists' claims that it's "100% bird and nothing else" are clearly completely and utterly false.Though Duane Gish's Acts and Facts article on Archaeopteryx was rather amusing. In most of it he reiterated their standard "it's 100% bird" claims, but then he mentions the accusations that the feathers are a forgery that were added to fossils of coleurosaurs (though I think he just said "dinosaur"; I'm not completely sure) and thus pronounced it to be 100% non-bird. He was trying to claim both positions in order to deny that it's transitional, when the fact that it can be either clearly shows it to be transitional.BTW, that accusation proved to be baseless, as was verified by microscopic examination of the original fossil in question.Along the same lines is an interesting page by Jim Foley in the Talk.Origins Fossil Hominids FAQ, "Comparison of all skulls" at Comparison of all skulls (link to the article on the home page, Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution is called "Comparison of creationist opinions"). Creationists claim that the various hominid fossils are not at all transitional but rather are either "100% human" or "100% ape". So the author lists a number of hominid fossils treated in the creationist literature and whether the creationist classified it as human or ape. Now, if their basic claim were true, then it should be easy to tell a "100% human" fossil from a "100% ape", right? Well, not only could the creationists not agree with each other, but one creationist even change in his classification of the same fossil. Now, with a transitional fossil, we would clearly expect to have difficulty classifying it, which is what we see happening here.The basis for creationists claiming that a fossil is "100% whatever" is that they employ selective blindness, concentrating only on the features they want to see and ignoring the rest. For example, I first saw creationists in action back in 1981 when a debate between a scientist and a creationist was televised on a show on Pat Robertson's CBN. I remember that the scientist showed several slides of
hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory, which also taught me a lot about creationist honesty and concern for the truth.BTW, as successful as that two-model class was, the university forced Awbrey and Thwaites to discontinue it. The Christian clubs on campus were all up in arms against it and repeatedly protested it and petitioned the administration to close it down. The class was truly two-model as Awbrey and Thwaites gave half the lectures and leading creationists from the Institute for Creation Research in neighboring Santee gave the other half. In fact, it was in one of those lectures that A&T demonstrated to Gish that his claim about the bombadier beetle was false; the two chemicals the beetle uses do not explode spontaneously when mixed together. A&T's experience with the class is that creationism does not fare well when the evidence is actually presented and examined and that is what rankled the campus Christian clubs so much. So while the creationists claim that they are being prevented from presenting their views and presenting the evidence, what really happened is that it was the creationists (the Christian students) who campaigned fiercely to prevent the creationist speakers (the very same ones whose claims they believed in) from presenting their views and to prevent the evidence from being presented and examined.But back to the topic: you still have not addressed the question. ID wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic explanations. Just how do you propose that we test supernaturalistic explanations? Because if we are to be expected to use supernaturalistic explanations, then we will need to test them. Because if we are unable to test the hypotheses that we advance, then science will not work.Employing ID's supernatural-based science would require us to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. How are we supposed to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses? Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work?Science works extremely well, but you want to replace it with ID. Haven't you, or any ID proponent for that matter, given any thought to how that replacement of yours would work? Or even whether it would work at all?

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

And your response was avoid Vacate's questions and start taking PRATT-falls yet again. I already told you: I have seen Chevy Chase and you are no Chevy Chase.
{In case they have escaped you this second time, the cultural references are to a past presidential campaign response to an opponent comparing himself to John F. Kennedy and to several Saturday Night Live skits in which Chevy Chase portrayed then-President Ford}Instead of taking evasive PRATT-falls and dodging the questions, simply respond to them. Only change I recommend is that you respond honestly. Oh, you claim that you used to be an "evolutionist"? Care to define that term? Creationist toss it about without even thinking and yet refuse to offer a meaningful definition. Are you claiming to have studied evolution? Far too many other creationists have claimed to have been "evolutionists" and yet they also displayed incredibly abysmal ignorance of evolution and of science. I even corresponded with a creationist who claimed to be a scientist, but then when I asked for particular he became very evasive; as far as I could piece together, his claim was based on his having taken some science classes.So just what are you basing your claim of having been an "evolutionist"? Whatever the hell that is supposed to be. The same idiotic PRATTS you guys have been regurgitating for decades. How old are you? Early 20's? Those PRATTs have been around and were refuted before you were even born. What is your Christian witness for having been fooled by them? That Christians are fools? How is that supposed to serve your god?What happens when a creationist starts checking out your false claim about transitionals? As he starts researching for transitional fossils, he finds rooms full of journals documenting transitional fossils. That's what happened to Merle Hertzler, a creationist I had met on CompuServe and the only creationist there who tried to defend his position with honesty. He would actually research his claims and his opponents' responses. Within one year, he could no longer avoid the truth that creationism was a pack of lies, so he switched over to the evolution side. And he also left Christianity because it depended on such lies. At No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html, starting with the 12th paragraph ("Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet."), he tells the story of discovering the truth about that creationist claim.That "population count" claim is downright ludicrous. Henry Morris' population model is the simplest kind whose severe flaws are discussed in introductory treatments of the subject. It's called "The Bunny Blunder" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bunny.html) because it shows that the world rabbit population began with two bunnies about 100 years ago, hence the world can be no older than 100 years. It also shows:

quote:

---

According to Morris' model, in 2500 BCE, the world population was 750 people, so there were only about 150 to 200 able-bodied males, all concentrated in Egypt, available to hew and haul the 2.3 million limestone blocks ranging in weight from 2 to 50 tons to build the Great Pyramid of Cheops. During the preceding 200 years, even fewer men built six neighboring pyramids and many other structures. Things were even more hectic back between 3800 BCE and 3600 BCE when the total world population of 10 - 20 people, including women and children, rushed madly back and forth between Crete and the Indus River Valley building and abandoning enough fortified cities and massive irrigation systems to have housed and fed millions. My father was right; we HAVE gotten soft!

---

Are those the PRATTs that you had fallen for? Boy, how embarrassing that must be for you.Instead of taking those PRATT-falls, just answer the questions.Like the OP.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

We still need the ID's answer to the question of how we are supposed to test the supernaturalistic hypotheses that they and you want to force on science.In other words, the unanswered question (even the crickets dare not speak) of just how the hell ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work?

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Uh, Buz, please take a moment to think it through. First, it is absolutely ridiculous to include "questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology" in your list, since archeology has indeed been actively pursued at biblical sites and, I'm sure, is still being pursued.Second, can you see what you wrote? You're taking issue with science not pursuing questions leading to attempting to research the supernatural. Hello? Just how do you expect science to deal with the supernatural?You just brought us right back to the fundamental question I asked in the OP and that we have repeatedly posed to IDists and which those same IDists have dodged: just how exactly does ID expect science to test supernaturalistic explanations?Since you want science to incorporate the supernatural, you must be prepared to answer that question. Science's aversion to asking supernaturalistic questions is for the very practical reason that science cannot use nor deal with the supernatural. If you disagree with that statement and want to claim that science can indeed deal with the supernatural, then kindly answer the OP question and explain just how that supernatural-based science is supposed to work. 77 messages and still no answer. That is for the very simple reason that science's goal is to discover how the natural universe works. Besides which, this "teach the controversy" nonsense is an ID PR invention meant to sway public opinion and to use as part of their PR campaign to get their nonsense included in the schools. And it is a direct descendent of the old creationist PR ploys and lies to get their "creation science" nonsense taught in the schools.In short, there is no controversy. It's all a lie.As further supported by the absense of any explanation of how ID's supernaturalistic science is supposed to work. Especially considering that they have a multi-million-dollar budget behind their plans to replace science with it. To replace a science which works extremely well now, but would not work after ID has sunk its claws into it.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Or, I would add, if they cannot keep their beliefs to themselves (which would not be very reasonable to require them to do), then no one would really care what creationists believe if they could be honest about it! And not be such flaming hypocrites.Yes, hypocrites. Because while they lie incessently in order to push to have their religious beliefs taught in the schools as science, they also preach about absolute moral standards. "Absolute" standards that they not only violate at will, but do so with great zeal. And pursue such violations of their own "absolute" moral standards because they are inspired by their religion to do so.Since they apparently haven't actually read the Bible (as evidenced by their apparently complete ignorance of what it depicts to be Jesus' opinion of hypocrites), let me quote from Matthew, Chapter 7:

quote:

---

7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

That is the Matthew 7:20 test. Creationists amply demonstrate that their religion fails that test.While that fact seems completely lost on creationists, it is not at all lost on the rest of us.Creationists and most of their Christian brethren are the best argument and evidence against Christianity. Again, not merely because of their miserable example of what kind of people and misconduct their religion produces, but mainly because their religion inspires and causes such hypocritical misconduct. As I quote Conrad Hyers (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#HYERS, creationism is one of the single greatest contributors to the spread of atheism. I know that in my case, I could never even consider becoming a Christian, because the very thought is so morally repugnant.Actually, he didn't single out creationism, but rather wrote:

quote:

---

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science.

---

In that last sentence, we see that creationism has achieved something that science never could: it provides proof against God. Science cannot and would not address the question of the existence of God, because it cannot deal with questions of the supernatural. Science could not prove or disprove God even if it wanted to.But creationism teaches that if its claims are false, then God does not exist. And its claims are indeed false, therefore creationism proves that God does not exist. And it does so without even breaking a sweat.Of course, some Christians will protest this, pointing out that fundamentalists aren't "true Christians". And they would definitely have a point there. But I personally feel that fundamentalists do indeed represent what Christians truly are. At least what Christians are truly like when not restrained by morality.Edited by dwise1, : expanded the ending

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Uh, no, that would be right on topic. Remember, I am the one who posed the OP.Just exactly how is a science that it based on ID's requirement for supernaturalistic explanations supposed to work? How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses? Yes, so why are you declaring our attempts to get that question answer to be "off topic"?How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses? Uh, no it doesn't. It does nothing whatsoever to answer the question of how we are supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. No, you are obviously trying to avoid the question. Yet again, in case you haven't seen it before (by your conduct, you can't have):How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses?

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

Guile is guile, regardless of whether its user calls it "virtuous". Though it is appropriate, given the fundamentally deceptive nature of "creation science" and its more recent incarnation of "intelligent design".You did not answer the question, which you lifted out of context, apparently out of guile; here it is with the part of the sentence you left off:
"Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work?"The full question, re-submitted to Beretta (who has also never answered it, nor responded to my presentation of the transitional characteristics of Archaeopteryx in response to his facetious remark about it) reads as follows: Well? Aren't you even going to try to answer the question? For anyone to even begin to consider implementing ID's changes to science, that question must first be answered.Rather, it is clearly ID's intent to sacrifice science on the altar of their pathetic little "God of the Gaps". Since their false "God of the Gaps" must forever live in mortal fear of science, unlike a true "Sovereign over Nature" God.Edited by dwise1, : concluding paragraph.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Wrong! Science will not have anything to do with the supernatural because science cannot deal with the supernatural! If you disagree and contend that science can indeed deal with the supernatural and should incorporate supernaturalistic explanations, then do please so state and then demonstrate how such a supernatural-based science methodology would work.That is, after all, what this thread is supposed to be about. If you don't believe that, then here again is what I wrote in the OP: Well?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

{as there is nothing to hear but the crickets}

Exactly! If they want science to use supernaturalistic explanations and hypotheses, then they absolutely must offer some kind of guidelines for doing so. Science has been so incredibly successful and productive by not incorporating the supernatural, how is it supposed to function and continue to be productive after being forced to incorporate the supernatural? I contend that it cannot and that incorporating the supernatural will kill science.Even besides the ultimate outcome, ID's imposition of the supernatural on science would present the more immediate need for a supernatural-based scientific method. I've already described the basic methodology of hypothesis building, testing, and refinement leading to theory development. And I've already pointed out that supernaturalistic hypotheses cannot work because we have no means whatsoever of observing, measuring, or detecting anything that's supernatural, nor can we even possibly determine whether the supernatural even exists. Without the ability to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis, the methodology screeches to a halt.Now, could an ID advocate please describe how the scientific method could successfully use and test a supernaturalistic hypothesis. Or describe how the ID literature describes the scientific method successfully using and test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? And if no ID advocate can even begin to offer such a description, then why advocate the incorporation of the supernatural in science?Or another bit of scientific methology: the controlled experiment. In a controlled experiment, the experiment is run multiple times (very often in parallel, such as in testing the responses of bacteria to different substances). You want to test the effects of a particular factor, so you run the test incorporating that factor and you also run the identical test without that factor (this is the control group). Then you compare the results of the two sets of tests to determine the effects of that factor.So, how do you run a controlled experiment to test the effects of some supernatural factor? First, how do you ensure that the test group does have that supernatural factor applied to it? And, more importantly, how do you ensure that the control group does not have the supernatural factor applied? And how do you determine which supernatural factor is (or is not) being applied?A possible solution that comes to mind are to use magical invocations, preferably combined with the sacrificing of the right animals to the right gods/spirits. Though how then are we to know the right invocations and the right choices of gods and sacrificial offerings?Or you could simply pray fervently that your experiment will work. I'm sure that that approach is very widely used, especially in school, though its effectiveness is extremely doubtful.Or, to ward off the supernatural factor from the control group, you could draw a pentagram on the floor with salt and place the control group within it. At least that's what's done in cheesy movies.This is very important, because if you cannot control your experiments, then you cannot do science.I find it very telling that no ID advocate has even tried to answer these questions.

And you completely side-stepped the question. To remind you, as I wrote it in the OP (AKA "Msg 1"): Well, in practical terms, just how is supernatural-based science supposed to work and still remain fully functional?That question remains unanswered.BTW, if you do have actual scientific evidence for creation, as I believe you had strongly stated in another thread, then do please present it -- in the appropriate thread, of course. In doing so, you would do something that no other creationist has ever been able to do: present actual scientific evidence.