Does ID follow the scientific method?

The primary ID methodology is to control public opinion and through that to force the science curriculum into promoting a "science" that is more congenial to their religious beliefs.This is why they focus more on popular works and high school texts than on actual scientific research. Do not forget that ID started with a high school text - even though ID does not have a real theory even now.This is why they lie about being "persecuted". Despite his claims Dembski has never even come close to being fired for believing in ID - but he would be fired from his current job if he were not a creationist and was nearly fired for doubting the global extent of Noah's Flood.This is why the OECs who make up the bulk of the ID leadership will not denounce young-earthism. They need YEC support for their ambitions of success through political action.This is why the religious aspect of ID is both emphasised and denied. It is good for convincing the religious masses - but poison when it comes to forcing their way into the U.S. education system.If ID were even a nascent fringe science it would not be like this. There would be more scientific research, and many more publications. They would have started with at least the outline of a theory and should have firmed it up considerably by now. If all that had been done there might, maybe, be a popular book or two, but the public profile would be far lower - and of course there would be no YEC alliance. As it is, it is clear that what little science there is in ID is a largely unsuccessful sideline maintained only because it has apologetic value to have SOME scientific effort however poor it might be.So no, ID does not really use the scientific method. The conclusion of design is - for virtually all ID supporters - a religious conclusion with no real scientific basis. What matters to ID is the promotion of this conclusion - above and beyond such small considerations as truth and morality.

quote:

---

It is not FOR ME a question of religious preference or social nonsense, but one of pure logic

---

Since you are not a representative of ID and have no grasp of logic whatsoever (as you thoroughly proved in a LONG thread) this claim is both off-topic and false.But since I have no interest in debate with a lunatic Trekkie - especially one who is clearly ignorant of the topic of the thread - I have nothing more to say to you.

I think that it is instructive to deal with the way science and ID treat this issue.Scientists discovered that large amounts of DNA did NOT code for proteins - and had no identifiable purpose. The (misleading) term "junk DNA" attached itself to the non-coding DNA. It must be noted, however, that not all noncoding DNA is true junk (and this has been known for a long time). Parts of it do play useful and even important roles - but much of it does not.It should be noted that Darwinian theory does NOT predict that there should be large amounts of useless DNA - quite the contrary. Resources expended in duplicating useless DNA are wasted, and thus a drag on evolutionary fitness. The obvious expectation is that useless DNA would be lost.Scientists, of course, did not stop there. They started - and continued - to investigate. To find the mechanisms producing non-coding DNA and even to look for functions (the evolutionary paradigm providing a convenient way to locate likely functional areas - something that ID cannot offer). While function has been demonstrated for some small fraction of non-coding DNA, the majority still remains without known function or even a solid reason to assume function. And ID supporters rely heavily on selectively promoting (and often misrepresenting) the work of these, genuine, scientists."Junk DNA" is also useful for identifying common ancestry, and the real junk is especially for countering creationism. Creationism cannot reasonably account for useless DNA shared between separately created species and this may be one reason why the creationists in the ID movement are especially hostile to the idea of "Junk DNA". Typically IDists try to avoid forming any hypothesis based on design even going as far as to say "Intelligent Design is not optimal design" (giving a pass to any "design", no matter how stupid). However on this issue they have gone to the extent of making the assertion that ALL DNA is functional almost a dogma of the movement.The essay that Marc linked is a typical example of ID propaganda.The title is:

quote:

---

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm

---

But "Junk DNA" is not a "neo-Darwinian paradigm" and it is not dead. You will note that Luskin mainly quote media sources on the discovery rather than actual scientific papers. (And contrary to what it seems that Marc would have you believe it was mainstream science, not ID researchers who made the discoveries that inspired the article).The first study, is based on the opossum genome project. The Wired article that Luskin links to appears to be an ID-friendly puff-piece which says very little about the work (the fact that the article pays as much attention to Meyer's opinions as to the actual findings is proof of that !). If Luskin were offering anything like science (or even good science journalism) we could expect at least a reference to an actual paper.
Compare the Wired article with this, a more scientific look at the same results. And note that it specifically states that the changes occurred in regulatory elements (i.e. elements KNOWN to be functional) instead of using the "junk" term. There is nothing here to help the ID movement's assertions that there is no "Junk DNA" because regulatory elements are nothing new.The other major piece of mainstream science - a study that indicated that a very large proportion of the human genome is transcribed (i.e. it did NOT actually identify functions for DNA) has itself come under question. Contrary to Marc's frequently repeated (and never demonstrated) assertion real science does undergo checks to confirm results (hence, for instance, the fall of "cold fusion" and the reason why the Wow! Signal is not accepted as proof of extraterrestrial life). And the Encode study is no exception - this investigated the results, and came to a quite different conclusion.

This pretty much confirms my impression of the so-called relevant parts of your post. All they amount to is badmouthing scientists, on the assumption that the evidence must really support ID and practically all scientists are atheists and are therefore prejudiced against ID.Of course, in reality there are a substantial number of Christians working within science - and ID is a minority even there. Even Behe has moved considerably towards mainstream science from his creationist roots, and away from the mainstream of ID thought.Furthermore it seems that you think that a prejudice in favour of ID is a better basis for scientific judgement than actual knowledge. While consistent with your own methodology that is hardly a reasonable position. The best judges of what is biologically reasonable are those who understand the biology, of course.Finally I should point out that vague suggestions for work that might be done is hardly evidence that work is being done, let alone that it is being done according to the scientific method. This topic is about the methods actually followed by the ID movement, not about what they might do if they decided to follow Behe's program.

Still on Wyatt and Moeller ? Wyatt was hardly scientific. He was incapable of doing decent research (wrong about the Bible, wrong about the satellite data, wrong about Egyptology). He was incapable of conducting a decent archaeological investigation. He was a liar and a fraud. And he found no significant evidence. While we don't have the same evidence of dishonesty against Moeller he saw even less than Wyatt "discovered" and was not much more competent either.Real archaeologists did a far better job - and that is how we know that the Exodus DIDN'T occur as the Bible describes it.And you know perfectly well why Ballard won't bother with Wyatt's bullshit. because it IS bullshit. THe evidence just isn't there, and you know it.

quote:

---

Taq, you people keep on keeping on hollering for evidence and other SM data when all you need to do is view the researched MSM evidence on Lennart Moller's Exodus Video or read his excellent book, THE EXODUS CASE which peers, if you will, the MSM scientifically researched data.

---

If there really is significant evidence in the video or book why do you - and all the other Wyatt supporters who have ever been to this site - try to palm us off with rubbish instead ?It seems to me that the main difference in your "method" is that it institutionalises your own biases. The only "god" truly in it is you. Thus you want there to be significant evidence for Wyatt's claims therefore to you there is (and the fact that there isn't can be ignored). You want Wyatt and Moller to be using the scientific method instead of doing shoddy crank research at best therefore to you they are never mind their many hopeless errors. The same methodology applies to your so-called "Bible study" (which is nothing of the sort).But doubtless you disagree. So then I'll challenge you to defebnd the rewrite of Egyptian history favoured by Wyatt and Moller. Egyptian history is much easier to research (and I have a source actually used to "support" some of their arguments - Tyldesly's Hatsepshut).
Surely, if they are being scientific such a major change to Egyptian history must be supported by sound evidence - and deal with the evidence supporting the mainstream view, too.Of course my position is that they are not being scientific, that the rewrite is nonsense and that they ignored the real evidence because they - like you - placed personal bias way above intellectual honesty and scientific integrity. The real evidence fails to show any support for their claims and in fact refutes them on some significant points.If you say that you will dare to defend them I will start the thread. I don't think that you will. I think that you know in your heart that Wyatt and Moller are peddling bullshit and that you are only pretending to have the evidence.

I'm going to disagree with your analysis.CSI as defined by Dembski is only identified by ruling out all non-design explanations, showing that they are too improbably to be accepted. Thus the problem is not the assumption that only designed things contain CSI, the problem is the claim that CSI has been discovered in living things. Contrary to the assetion in the article it has NOT been shown that irreducibly complex systems are examples of CSI. In fact there is very good reason to think that evolution WILL produce irreducibly complex systems, so IC cannot be taken as CSI.Thus the whole example rests on an assertion that is not only unproven but is highly likely to be false.

In fact CSI is useless in biology. Even if we could reasonably identify all the possibilities the probabilities simply cannot be calculated.The claim that IC is an example on CSI is based on nothing more than a casual reading of Behe's book [b]Darwin' Black Box[/i] (if that) and an appeal to Behe's authority. In fact Behe admitted in the book that IC systems could evolve but offered the unsupported opinion that it was very, very unlikely. However, that is not sufficient to show that IC systems are examples of CSI - even if Behe was correct the probability could still be too high. But Behe is almost certainly wrong and I have yet to see a serious attempt at supporting his claim.So this is an example of ID's unscientific nature - an argument so shoddy that they cannot even accurately represent the views of their own "expert".

The Quarterly Review of Biology - a journal publishing review articles rather than original research has published an article about Behe and IC. The [Sign in - Google Accounts]penultimate draft[/URL] is online.It has much to say of relevance - such as Behe's frequent reliance on equivocation to avoid criticism of his argument. A particularly relevant point, though is this: So Behe offers neither a scientific alternative to evolution - even if we ignore the question of supernaturalism - nor even solid, sound objections to current theory. And Behe is one of the least unscientific and open-minded proponents of ID. If even he falls so badly short of the standards of science how can anyone claim that ID is a scientific enterprise ?