Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

Dawn, science does have models and theories to explain those models; ID has neither models nor theories.Science has a methodologies for working with evidence to build hypotheses, models, and theories; ID has no demonstrable methodologies.Science, in particular archaeology, has methodologies for determining whether something was designed; ID has demonstrated no methodology for detecting or determining design.We have repeatedly requested that you stop bullshitting and that you present ID's methodology for detecting and determining design. You persist in refusing to present any methodology and instead just keep repeating the same old bullshit, thus implicitly admitting that you have nothing. Assuming design in everthing a priori serves no practical purpose -- recall the folk analysis of "assume" such that it makes an ass out of everybody. What possible use can the a priori assumption of design have for understanding how a particular natural phenomenon works?You want to have ID taught in the public schools. What educational value could that possibly have? What happens when it is taught to schoolchildren? We see the products of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian upbringing and education, where ID and other aspects of creationism are taught non-stop: a generation whom you consider to be slackard hangers-on who merely associate with Christianity because they are deconverting from Christianity in droves.Dawn, if you actually have some actual support for ID, then please present it and stop bullshitting.

No, you have repeatedly provided bullshit. Your "model" does not qualify as a model and that "process" you give is not how an actual model is developed, so it is quite different from a scientific model. You have provided bullshit yet again. Coyote has already done an excellent job on your illogic (Message 61). To start with, I beg his indulgence by repeating his definition:

quote:

---

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

---

A: You say that a model is an examination. Are you really that densely clueless? They are two entirely different things!B: You already see the definition of a model. An examination is where you have something that is to be examined, like a patient at a doctor's office, of which observations are made and on which tests are run, etc. The examination process is the set of procedures used to perform the examination. The examination process is used to collect data which could be used in formulating a model or in testing an existing model, but clearly, the examination process is not the model itself. Only an idiot would conflate the two.C: Well, to start with, you have no model. We can't even tell whether any actual examination ever took place, but since you claim that an examination is a model -- sorry, nearly sprayed my drink there -- then you clearly do not even have any model. No model, no possible way it could generate any conclusions. And assuming for argument's sake the highly unlikely event of an examination actually having been conducted, that examination was conducted with the a priori assumption of the conclusions. Scientifically, your conclusions are worthless.I've already describe to you how science does it. You refused to read it then, so why should we expect you to read it this time? Well, here I go again, casting yet another pearl before swine.A model is not created as you want to do it, in a single action out of whole cloth. Rather it is developed in much the same way as a theory is and often in conjunction with the development of a theory. There is something you want to understand. You make observations to determine what existing models and/or theories might apply. If you find one (or a few), you use that as a starting point; if you don't, then you start from scratch. From your understanding of the phenomenon, you formulate hypotheses which you then test. The results of those tests either support or refute your hypotheses, so you reject or correct the unsupported hypotheses, come up with new hypotheses based on what worked or on the possible corrections and you retest. And you repeat that process over and over again. Iteratively, you correct and refine your model. As successful hypotheses accumulate, your understanding of the model increases and improves and develops in the theory which explains the phenomenon.Clearly, your "rules" are quite different from ours.D: You have no ID model. Your conclusions were decided upon a priori, before you even started. That is not a valid procedure. GIGO in the purest sense.
The scientific method repeatedly tests its models against the evidence, through hypotheses are are meant to test its strengths and to probe its weaknesses, trying as much to break as to support it. Even if it starts with a false initial formulation, the methodology will determine that to be the case and will direct the process towards the truth. That is a valid procedure.That was your "method"? It's a bunch of crap. Next time, before you make the silly claim that you're following the same rules as the scientific method, you might want to learn something about the scientific method. I know you're really in lust with ignorance, but it's not a good idea.But there's another very serious problem for your "model". In your other "reply" (Message 55), you made it clear yet again that your "Designer" is your god, which is supernatural. So your "model" is based on the supernatural. That's what you want to have included in science, the supernatural. Tell me, Dawn, just how the hell are we supposed to form supernaturalistic hypotheses? And just how the hell are we supposed to test them?You want to be taken seriously? You already know that you need to provide a methodology for detecting and determining design. Well, you also need to provide a methodology for testing supernaturalistic hypotheses.The bottom line as we understand it is that testing supernaturalistic hypotheses is impossible. Forcing science to use supernaturalistic hypotheses will cripple and even kill it. Or worse, change it into theology. Which would make it completely useless.Edited by dwise1, : underline

No, ID is not science. It doesn't even try to be science, but rather stays firmly on the path of pseudo-science as it employs false claims and deception methods to mislead the public into supporting it and helping it in its agenda to change science radically with the end result of effectively killing science.Nor is it logical. Rather, it tries to take on the appearance of being logical as it deceives. The use of logical constructs in order to deceive is called sophistry:

quote:

---

In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due to the influence of many past philosophers.

​

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic; e.g., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is; e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques.

​

A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. Sophists will try to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether their argument is logical and factual.

​

Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word can be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.

---

One form of sophism is to use a valid logical construct, but getting the victim to agree to false premises which will then enable the sophist to arrive at the desired false conclusion. In classic examples such conclusions include that day is night or that black is white. Absolutely false conclusions "proven logically".We have been trying to get you to support the premises of your "logic", which you have absolutely refused to do. The clear mark of a sophist.For ID to be considered science, it must do the research and publish for the review of scientists. We've been over this with you countless times. Dishonest "public debates" and PR campaigns are not the way. They cannot be voted in as science. There is no royal road. They have to do the real work. Which, of course, they refuse to do and will certainly never do.For your ID claim to actually be logical, you will need to present the development of that logic, coherently and cogently (IOW, in non-gibberish). Including the premises, which you must present and support fully and defend honestly in discussion. All those things that you refuse to do and will certainly never do.You know full well what it will take. If ID has any truth to it, then honest exposition and discussion will bring that out. Of course, if ID has no truth to it, then that will also be brought out, which gives you and other IDists strong motivation to misbehave in just the manner in which you have been misbehaving consistently. No, I don't like it because it is a lie and a deception. Worse, the purpose of the deception is to fool us into allowing you to have the schools teach your religious beliefs.Yet again your abject ignorance is showing; I have explained this before. The idea of creation does not bother me. And while I don't believe in your god, it does not bother me at that you and others do. And when you and others of your faith practice flagrant hypocrisy, I wouldn't say that it bothers me, though I cannot help but shake my head sadly at how typical such misbehavior is. When someone professes to believe something and to practice those beliefs, then that is what he should do. I guess that's just too much to expect.What does bother me is when someone tries to force his religion on others and especially when they try to use government to that end. And it bothers me when that effort involves lies and deception. And it bothers me when someone attacks something because he doesn't understand it and falsely believes that it poses some kind of threat to his religion. And especially when he seeks to cripple or destroy something to the detriment of the rest of society.You do not understand science and you are afraid of it, so you seek to change it radically to the detriment of science and of society. Science has been a very successful enterprise, in large part due to its methodology. You want to change that methodology, to replace it with your own, even though your replacement methodology ... doesn't exist. Or at least you have yet to present it despite repeated demands that you do so. My assessment of your dishonest conduct in this matter is that your methodology does not exist. You're just lying to us yet again.Dawn, if you propose to radically change something as incredibly successful and useful as science, then you'd better have a damned good reason! You have refused to present any.If you want to tell us that your radical change is necessary to correct a gross deficiency in science or to improve science, then you'd better have a damned good explanation! You have refused to provide any.Dawn, you need to conduct yourself honestly ... Oh, yeah, you refuse to do even that, and quite emphatically. How sadly typical of your religion.Refer to the Matthew 7:20 Test. I'm sure you haven't yet.

Please stop bullshitting us. We told you the same things we've been telling you all along, but which you repeatedly chose to ignore.Does that mean that you are finally going to read what we are telling you and are going to respond? Hopefully not with yet more bullshit gibberish.

As I feared, you're just spewing yet more bullshit.Dawn, you never fail to disappoint.

Nonsense! Especially now that you have been told what a model is (and, no, it is not mere examination): A model needs to be constructed and verified. It is verified through testing it by examination of real-world evidence. Even if you were to construct a model out of whole cloth based solely on your prior understanding of how that which is being modelled works, it still needs to be tested to verify that it does actually describe what which it is supposed to model. The model must be tested.You have presented no model and have even erroneously identified the process of examination as your model -- the examination process is frequently guided by the model, but it is no more the model itself than an actual building is the same thing as a set of blueprints.But let us extremely charitable and assume that you do have a model, one which says that everything is designed. How did you construct that model? Out of whole cloth, based solely on your a priori understanding. OK, that might work. Now, how did you test that model? Com'on, we're waiting. How did you test that model? What do you mean, you have never tested your model? Then that means that you have nothing!Dawn, in order to test your model, you need to have what Coyote is asking for, a formal process for confirming your subjective observations as facts, a formal process for detecting and determining design. Something which you now finally admit that you do not have.Well, Dawn, if you have no way to detect or determine design, then how could you possibly test your model? And if you cannot test your model, then how could you possibly know that it actually does model nature?Dawn, by your own admission, you have nothing.

From Dawn's Message 55, also repeated in his Message 59, (my emphasis added): Dawn and his fellow IDists doing exactly what they berate others for allegedly doing.Dawn, meet your own petard.

Whatever does any of that have to do with anything in that message to which you just "replied"?The scientific method is well-established and knowledge of it is freely available. Dawn falsely claims that his own ID "methodology" and "model" are identical to those of the scientific method. In my quote of him (in which your own quote does not appear), Taq offers a brief description of the sequence of actions to be taken in the scientific method and points out that ID vitally essential key steps. I then quoted Dawn in one of multiple cases of him accusing us of skipping steps. I concluded that that has Dawn hoisting himself on his own petard.So what does your "reply" have to do with that?BTW, you left out the effects of natural selection. It has been several decades, the better part of a century, since any non-creationist has seriously equated evolution with mutation. You might want to review the Grand Synthesis.