What does ID theory say?

And if he follows the line of the popes that came before him, he'll say evolution's true.Which doesn't matter anyway, since it's an argument form authority.

---

I hunt for the truth

Can you explain why it is that ID theory never results in any specific verifiable predictions or discoveries?Or if you think it does can you prvide some examples of discoveries made as a direct consequence of ID theory?If not then do you think that this demonstrates a weakness in ID theory?Evolutionists would, I think, argue that prediction and discovery of new evidence is a key feature in demonstrating the veracity of evolutionary theory.I am interested to know how you counter this seemingly argument clinching position?

I post here because the reason-for-being of this debate board encourages it.And again: your comments retreat into defining yourself and your science correct. I could do the same. Creationists-IDists reject your definition of science. And if I am a religious zealot, understood objectively, this makes you an anti-religious zealot, or an ordinary Atheist.Ray

Then why not create another field of discipline rather than trying to change the current accepted definition of science? I think the most qualified people to define what science is and how it should proceed ought to be scientists. I don't see any reason why creos and IDists can't create their own field of discipline. Call it cre-ence or intelligent-designence or whatever. I don't care.

False.Special creation, also known as independent or separate creation, is a scientific hypothesis that claims to explain how species are introduced into reality. Ray

Behe in Black Box (1996) showed biochemical systems irreducibly complex. Dembski in Intelligent Design (1999) argued that mutation cannot be random since specified complexity (and I add: adaptation) are universally accepted phenomena. Show me a sealed envelope containing an evolutionary prediction.Ray

Exactly.An unverified and, arguably, unverifiable hypothesis.At best.As opposed to evolutionary theory which has passed numerous tests of verifiable prediction thus making it a verified and superior hypothesis. I.e a fully formed scientific theory.

So what exactly are the specific verified predictions and discovery of new evidence in these examples? The predicted, searched for and discovered Tiktaalik transitional.

Behe's ideas concerning irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong. Here are some specific reasons, along with supporting articles:

​

The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary (or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is Silly)

​

A simple and concise explanation for why the anti-evolutionary argument from "irreducibly complexity" is flawed — gradual evolution by natural selection readily evolves "irreducibly complex" structures.

​

Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?

​

Keith Robison reviews Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" — that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously. But is it true?

​

Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?

​

One of the molecular assemblages that Michael Behe claims is "irreducibly complex" is the complement system, an arm of the vertebrate immune system so named because it "complements" the effect of antibodies. This essay outlines the functioning of the complement system and undercuts Behe's argument by showing that simpler yet still functional versions of it exist in nature.

Would you like more examples?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ray, Already did.Please can you now explain your hypocrisy?

quote:

---

Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.

​

ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim.

---

If ID is science because it makes a claim, then evolution must be.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The context of the apparent contradictory claims refutes contradiction.Here is what I believe:Both Creationism and Evolutionism interpret and explain the same database of scientific evidence. There is not two sets of evidence. There is one, and two major explanations of this evidence.Since the evolutionary explanation or interpretation is false the same is not science. Since the Creationism-ID explanation and interpretation is true it is science.The right to call one's explanation "science" or "scientific" is determined by its veracity. Sometimes I call evolution "science" gratuitously so whatever point I am making is not misunderstood.Ray

Then explain how this can be when there is evidence for evolution but none for creationism/ID

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Ray, But only one makes predictions & is supported by evidence. Ergo, only one matters; evolution. Er, no. If something is amenable to scientific enquiry it is science. Its subsequent truth or falsity is irrelevant. As above, but evolution has evidence, ID doesn't. Moreover, ID doesn't even make predictions & is therefore unscientific. No, it isn't. Veracity has NOTHING to do with it! You really are doing some serious mental gymnastics here, Ray. No wonder you have trouble in this debate.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Like Joe Pesci, Bluescat, you're a funny guy.Ray

Like Sgt Joe Friday says "The facts".As many adhearents of evolution have asked you and other creationists or IDers, Give some solid, scientific, falsifyable evidence of such. Thus far none have.Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969