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

Ah. Rhetorical question. Right. Sorry.
You might be waiting a while...

---

Mutate and Survive

From what I think you're asking, I'd say that with ID you'd brainstorm along different lines as well as along evolutionary lines and test your hypotheses just like science always does.Evolution and ID allow for different possibilities and you can test accordingly.As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function.
ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past -lets find out what it is.Evolutionary assumptions of the past made many vestigial organs out of things that do have functions by brainstorming through the evolutionary perspective. ID sees it differently but it doesn't mean they're going to be holding a service while they sort out their microscopes. They might even pray for wisdom but it's not going to upset any non-believer because they won't even know and only hypotheses giving results are going to make any difference.
ID will give new options for investigation, it's not there to upset empirical science.
I'm not sure whether that is the sort of answer you're looking for, Purpledawn, if I'm not answering what you really need to know, please rephrase the question and I'll try again.

So are you saying that it is in fact a bird or do you say it is a feathered dinosaur, some kind of a missing link?

quote:

---

As a simple example, imagine there's a cell component that evolution believes is vestigial because it doesn't appear to have a function.
ID doesn't come along and say "oh goddidit, leave the poor thing alone!" -they say, well since we believe that everything is made with a function -this may no longer have a function (due to mutation perhaps) but chances are, if it's there it has a function or at least it certainly did have in the past -lets find out what it is.

---

So basically ID says the same thing as evolution on this point.However evolution would also go on and want to find out how the original, fully functional features had arrived. And how it had changed and adapted in different lineages. How much work would ID do after the original function had been successfully found ?

I understand that you're saying that ID looks at different possibilities and that they test those possibilities.What conclusions have they come up with?You've mentioned the vestigial organs several times, so use that as an example.What conclusions did ID come up with concerning human vestigial organs that are different than current conclusions? Appendix
Plica Semilunaris

My point is that if it weren't for the underlying evolutionary assumptions that has dominated science for the last two centuries, perhaps organs of the human body such as tonsils and appendix would not have been so easily classified as vestigial as they were in the past. If the opposing underlying assumptions had dominated science, these organs would not have been so easily dismissed as vestigial simply because their function was not known at the time.
The same applies to junk DNA being dismissed as junk, it's assumption rests on evolutionary presupposition.ID has the potential to further science by escaping the box of materialism.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that different scientific possibilities result from different presuppositions if there's any truth in the non-reigning paradigm which I'm sure there is.

How many years would be nessesary before you would decide that your idea should be investigated for supporting evidence? You can look into the future and suppose all you want about changing the way people approach science and you hope getting different results. My question is when does ID plan to start supporting these suppositions with evidence?Why are you pushing for an idea that may be valid if people possibly look into it, and hopefully could someday have results that you hope may possibly be favourable to your cause? If I just made something up would I be correct in expecting your support in an attempt to change "reigning paradigms"? If I made something up would you first ask for evidence before marching behind me?You have said what you hope ID will do. When will it be done? Most importantly, how will it be done? Why should possible science be considered, let alone taught in schools, when it hasn't been done yet?

Not "missing" any more, obviously. More like a link that once was lost but now is found - a prodigal link, as it were.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

We have all the same facts only our conclusions make more sense - the majority of us were evolutionists first and moved over.The evidence for creation is everywhere unfortunately evolutionists are blinded by their evolutionary dogma.Look around you -does it look like a blind mutational process going on?What about the extreme lack of transitional fossils?
200 times too little helium in the atmosphere
Helium in the wrong places
Spiral galaxies winding up
Great shortage of first and second stage supernova rings
Complete absence of third stage supernova rings
Population count
Short period of recorded history
Second law of thermodynamics
Trillions of stars but we can't see one forming
Earth's magnetic field decaying
Not nearly enough skeletons for numbers of generations that should have died
Everything has fully formed organs -where are the developing ones half formed?I'm sure you must have heard of these things -what are your explanations?

So you've provided one of those lists that try to counter evolution. Where's the actual support for ID?

A note:The topic is "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?"Attacking some other model adds no weight to the ID model.If you wish ID to be seen as anything more than a joke, you must provide the model and supporting evidence for your position. See How can "Creationism" be supported?.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not concerned about the last two centuries.I'm concerned with what ID is doing now. What conclusions have they come to that are furthering science?What I'm hearing from you is that they haven't come to any conclusions from the different possibilities.So how can ID further science if it isn't narrowing down the possibilities?So far I don't see the benefit of ID to the average person.From what you said so far, I couldn't explain to anyone else how ID supposedly works or how it will benefit man in day to day living.

quote:

---

So far I don't see that ID works much differently than science when brainstorming possibilities.

---

Sure it does.Everything they come up with is predicated upon the idea that a Creator must have done it, and then they work backwards from there, trying to find evidence to fit their preselected conclusion.What you've got to remember, Pd, is that IDists are just somewhat more sophisticated Creationists. Their basic mode of thinking about evidence is fundamentally unscientific.

What are the predictions of ID?What are the potential falsifications?How have they been tested?What have been the results?