Does ID follow the scientific method?

Now will you be honest in answering the question with a Yes or a NO, as to whether the IDM is and involves scientific principles

Also explain why a belief in a deity requires me to conclude design, when all I need is complicated order and Harmony

Wrong what you have described above is simply a conclusion, the same as Macro-evolution and any of the other unseen and unwitnessed conclsusion derived by the SM

Would it be unreasonable to assume or conclude that aliens planted a seed in the oceans here to form the life the way it is

Would that conclusion be unreasonable?

You have to do better than that above to demostrate that ID is BS

You havent even got started

As of yet, except for Frako, no one has even attempted even a hint at that question.

I never disagreed that it was not a theory or a conclusion Mod, yet it is seperate from the Method of ID itself, until it reaches an unobservable conclusion, at which point it becomes a theory

It matters greatly HOW we arrive at any conclusion, especially if we are going to call it science

Your persuasion is misdireted and misguided. back there it was whether the IDM follows the SM in its approach. the reason no one will address the simple issue is that it casts a bad light on the SMs complicated approach

Here is where you are missing the point. When I describe the basics of scientific investigation, ie, observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction, etc, you are not justified in assuming these are inferences.

Mod the physical evidence cannot be different inthis instance if we use the same rules and tools

It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructure

Dawn Bertot writes:You need to ask me to give you an example of IDs methods that preceed its conclusion, which is Intelligent Design

Dawn Bertot writes:The scientific method cannot pass any of these tests because you are looking for test that prove the conclusion of evolution, by asking me to demonstrate ID, which is also a conclusion.

Sorry, I'm new here and thought your post was a reply to mine since its directly under mine. I've redirected my last response to a brainwashed evolutionist named Dr. Adaquate. Hope this clears up any confusion.

From Wiki:John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[56]
Michael Behe - Wikipedia

I think this answers the question, "Does ID follow the scientific method?"

Yes, it is possible.
Now show us how you use the ID method to design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructureThis is a scientific observation and investigation of the natural world to come to the conclusion of obvious or even appearent design, now watch, not a bit different than any principle applied in the so-called SMHow is this not scientific and how is the conclusion unjustified logically

Hi, Dawn.
I would like to do one thing.I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:A real world example of IDM making observations of the natural world.A real world example of IDM formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.A real world example of IDM experimenting to test that hypothesis.A real world example of IDM forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructureThis is a scientific observation and investigation of the natural world to come to the conclusion of obvious or even appearent design, now watch, not a bit different than any principle applied in the so-called SMHow is this not scientific and how is the conclusion unjustified logically

Dawn Bertot writes:Here is howfrom post 131: Bertot writes: *snip*

I asked you to design an experiment. You're standing on the surface of a planet. You've hypothesized that it was designed as some sort of "Genesis Project". What specific data are you going to collect to test that hypothesis? What equipment will you use to collect the data? How will you analyze the data?

It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructure
This is a scientific observation and investigation of the natural world to come to the conclusion of obvious or even appearent design, now watch, not a bit different than any principle applied in the so-called SMHow is this not scientific and how is the conclusion unjustified logically

Wrong I have done this many times now, both here and in other threads. It uses a simple process to observe, test, measure evaluate and study detailed organisms both great and small.