Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

More importantly, what is the null hypothesis? What observations, if made, would be inconsistent with ID?What mixture of characteristics in a fossil would be inconsistent with ID?What types of shared genetic markers between species would be inconsistent with ID?The null hypothesis is just as important as the hypothesis, a fact that most IDers ignore.

In order to do this ID would need to make predictions and construct falsifiable hypotheses. ID has been incapable of doing this, so there is no way to apply our observations to ID through the scientific method. Wrong. This is what ID proponents believe. They have yet to show that the evidence implies their beliefs because they lack anything approaching a scientifically valid hypothesis. Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science. It is creationists that want creationism taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, the evidence must meet the requirements of science in order to be taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, evidence must be empirical. Period. If it is not then it is not SCINETIFIC evidence. It really is that simple.If creationists were calling for creationism to be taught in philosophy class or a religious class of some type then we could adopt the types of evidences or epistemologies that these fields use. However, as long as creationists want creationism taught in science class then we are going to use the scientific criteria. I was under the impression that many kids who attend public schools also attend Sunday school. Last I heard Sunday school is still offered free of charge and is open to any and all.The problem here is that you want to government to do your evangelizing for you, with tax dollars nonetheless. From my understanding of constitutional law, that isn't allowed.

I don't think "exclude" really describes it. Instead, they suggest that natural laws themselves have changed in the past in order to produce these pieces of evidence. Add in some Last Thursdayism and there you have it.In the case of ID, it suffers from vagueness and obsfucation. What pattern of homology does ID predict? None. What mixture of features in fossil species does ID predict? None. What type of shared genetic markers does ID predict? None. In order to escape falsification like young earth creationism has suffered they have made ID so vague as to be useless as a scientific pursuit.

If you want to claim that ID is science, then yes, it is necessary. Your model does not make predictions, is not testable, and is not falsifiable. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements of science. It is that simple. Evolution explains why we see a nested hierarchy, why we see specific transitional fossils but not others, why we see shared ERV's between humans and other apes . . . on and on and on. It explains why we observe these things through testable and falsifiable mechanisms (e.g. mutation and selection).ID explains none of this, and proposes no testable mechanisms by which any of this could occur. ID can not explain why we see ape-human transitionals but not mammal-bird transitionals. ID can not explain why humans and other apes share the same ERV at the same location in our genomes. ID proposes no testable mechanism by which we could share these ERV's. ID can not explain the nested hierarchy at any level be it living species, fossils species, or in the genome.

You are begging the question. You first need to show, scientifically, that order requires an intelligent designer before concluding so. The differences between ID and real science are quite striking. ID lacks predictions, testable mechanisms, is not falsifiable, and can not explain the evidence we do have (e.g. nested hierarchy). It fails at every turn. Since you are the one asserting that there is a model it is up to you to supply the evidence of such a model. Lacking such evidence we can only conclude that there is no model. Either you can support your own claims or you can not. It is up to you.Please explain how the ID model explains the nested hierarchy in a testable and falsifiable manner. If no such model exists, then just say so.

Once again, ID has no model. It started from a conclusion. ID is not testable nor is it falsifiable. ID can not explain the evidence we do have. ID fails at every turn when it comes to being science.Compare this to evolution. Using the theory of evolution we can construct testable hypotheses. For example:"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Just a moment...Using this hypothesis we can test to see if humans and other apes share a common ancestor. So what are the ID hypotheses, and how are they testable? False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable. Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools. ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes. Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science. Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis). ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science. Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science. So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No. Facts become facts when many people observe the same thing. Facts are the world's data, the observations. Theories and models explain the data. DNA regulation is done through binding of protein or RNA to specific DNA sequences. This either shuts down transcription or turns transcription on. Mutations to either the DNA binding site or the DNA binding protein/RNA can alter the timing and strength of regulation.You might want to check out Thomas Schneider's EV program. It models the de novo evolution of DNA binding sites.
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/