Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

Well no, the only nail you hit was the happy land called 'assertion'. restating that IDst do this or that is not the same as showing me how in some rational form, that starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSIONhey look thats the very samething you do, I believe its called science, not conclusionsWhat evidence that you posesess could possibly be contrary to the idea of design. You see frako, your still mixing up conclusions with processes.Even if Evo were true it would have nothing to say about whether it were designed or not, speaking strickly about change and natural selection. However when we add the obvious order and law in, that is apart of the same scientific investigation, it brings design to light, as much as it would anyother PROCESS, that is stickly scientificits this small, yet vitally important point, that is the debarkation in these legal processes. So it appears, when given the misguided veiw presented by "scientist", that ID is in contrast to evo, which of course it is not. It is this misguided veiw that misrepresents the scientific approach to the process of ID.Which is nothing more than a physical evaluation of the physical world, thats supports, in logical and physical form, both positions.this is also why most of these fellas wont meet you publically in debate, because when these simple facts are presented, it shows the complete fallacy of the misguded veiw of "scientist" concerning ID and it shows the secular fundamentalist humanists veiwpoint in a unfavorable lightSuch is lifeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

[qs]Speaking of the wedge document he provided Coyote writes: @
Of course not and that is exacally what I predicted, it would be. remember me saying it would not represent the design argument accurately, so I was correct, correct? What you quoted is and was not meant to be an argument, but a statement concerning the affects of humanistic doctrine, not a formal argument
@ @
No its not apologetics, its a formal statement on the affects of humanistic doctrine and its 100 percent correct, in that respect. Does the Wedge document have something of a formal argument concerning design you wish to take issue with @
Unless you could produce something in it that accurately reflects the position od ID as inaccurate as I have presented it ,then Ill let you have your issues with this paper and its exponents.
@
Dawn Bertot@ Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

@
Not a problem. But to understand the nature of the test you need to understand what science is and to be able to understand a scientific approach to the natural world.
@
Since I have now given you several illustrations and you have simply ignorned them and refused in an argument form, to break it down and show why its PROCESS in not science, Ill try and be a bit more specific and see if you will answer the question directly, given the nature of an accredited scientist.
@
Ignoring Behes conclusions, how could one ignore his status and his completely scientific approach to the natural world. he is a scientist, he uses scientifc methods to understand and evaluate the natural world
Even if you disagree with his conclusions, can you deny his approach?
@
that being the case and ignoring any conclusions as to how and why he thinks things are here, how would you begin to deny that his process or his approach is not science.
@
Do you see your immediate problem. To begin to attack the idea that ID is not science, you need to attack a scientists approach and method, which are clearly the same as yours to even beign to intimate our method is not science
@
To carry the argument even further, lets assume there is some scientist out there that agrees with your conclusion and process of evolution and all its tenets, but he says in an academic way, I dont see how that affects the idea that it could have been designed to evolve by a process of order and law.
@
I think you are starting to see the fallacy of conjoining IDs conclusions with its processesI think y ou aee starting to see the fallacy of conjoining religious or the supernatural with the methods of the design process @
Ill try and be patient here because I dont think you even at this point are aware of the mistake you are making. Ive presented it numerous times and you refuse to deal with it. the design principle has very litle to do with evolution, they are not opposites
@
Ill put it in question form for you. Could things have been designed to progress or as you call it evolve. yes or no. You clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes.consider the following from your own rules and principles
from wiki The null hypothesis is a tool that would apply to the process, which in this instance, is certainly more than 5% to establish that order and law, exist. It would not apply to your or my conclusions.Now watch the opposite of your point. If the null has to apply in all instances and it can not be demonstrated that things are NOT a product of a designer, which would would be the application of the null hypothesis to your conclusion, then it would follow that your position is not science and you are not using your own SM, becuae you cannot falsify that it was not created by a designer, correct?The null hypo would only apply to your process.The null hypothesis is just a tool, it does not apply in all instances. The process that ID uses passes the test for the Null evaluationBertot writes: frako writes [qs]What is the process of id what does it explain, how does it explain certain mechanisms. Again this is not the position of ID, creation or how evidence is established, as you have just witnessed using one of your own principlesBertot writes:frako writesWell, now that you have heard it as it really is and needs to be presented, perhaps you laughter will turn into, Hmmmmm?Dawn Bertot

there are none so blind, than those that will not go by thier own rules and guidlines. If change and order are both observable and testable, then it would follow that order is not a conclusion, but a process actually taking place.Dawn Bertot

Jar, if you feel you can address the conclusion of evolution, that things are here as a result of soley natural causes, prove that, then do a null hypo on it, knock yourself outHowever, I have to many times now demonstrated that the prodess of ID or model is nothing but science, its conclusions asideAnd isnt that what we and you are on about, whether its science? Show me how Behes for example, just his approach and methods are not science. You couldnt do it if you wanted to. it would be an logical impossibilty for you to evern attempt it. if you dont believe just try By implication here you are overstepping your bounds. Your implication is that you know for a fact that its a result of itself. What you have actually discovered is how it works. Of course anyone paying any attention knows this is lie. What you have failed to do is address my simple questions that would clear up so muchHows bout it, Jar give it a rea attemptDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Jar actually read the post extract the arguments in that connection, then repeat yourself if you wish. Ignoring the arguments is not debating Jar. If you dont Ill assmue, either you dont know how to debate or you dont know how to respond.here it is again in a question. Is what Behe is doing, his conclusion aside, his method and model, is it science, Yes or No?

This is where of course secular fundamentalatheists and secular fundamental scientist step beyond any reason to avoid an obvious conclusion. You did not answer my question. Is change and order observable in the physical world?You dishonestly shines like a light house when you redefine the obvious (order) as a "convient way describing something". That is simply intellectual dishonestyMight I discribe "change" as a convient way of describing the reality of change I cant measure a discription of a horse the way I can measure and identifiy order Not only are you intellectually dishonest, your a liarPlease demonstrate that a law I can see and measure is not a processDawn Bertot

@
You introduced them not me. My only point was to see i f you had a problem with some argument they presented
@ @
In fairness to them, I havent dead thier rocument, so Ill try and read it and see exacally what thier position is or is not
@ @
If by IT, you mean reality and reason, then Im guilty
@
Dawn Bertot
@
@
@
@

@
Ringo, tell me you are really Sharon Stone or atleast a ditzzy broad. Your really funny. When I introduced Change, I was using it as an formal argument, addressing your query about Order, thrown im my direction.
Since you do not believe order is observable and measurable, might I assume the same of Change. wouldnt they be the sameDawm Bertot writes:
I cant measure a discription of a horse the way I can measure and identifiy order Blondy and Dagwood. Ringo, what were these things before they were solid materials? Of course they were composed of molecules and atoms, all with orderly structures, operating in an harmonious fashion to form the rock or the diamond. You measure the solid material order by the ordered organisms that formed it in the first placeDawn Bertot writes:
Please demonstrate that a law I can see and measure is not a process @By the way anyone would, by building a machine that can be used to test, measure and utilze their obvious law, order and affects. No one would build an airplane, for example, believing that the laws in nature, wouldnt act and stay the same. He wouldnt be afraid to build it, because in the middle of flight he would fear that the laws would all of a sudden collapse.You can test measure and see the affects of the laws in the chemical world as well, its how we develope medicine@Put whatever term you wish to describe order and law on those items, their affects will be the same. Thier reality is what makes them what they are, not terms.@As I stated before, denying that such things are real and we can observe them is the height of intellectual dishonesty@Dawn Bertot

Wroig, IC, is a sub argument to the existing foundational argument of demonstratable order and law as you have just wittnessed in my post to Ringo. Only a fool would compare the two points of IC and order as equals.You may be able to bandy the concept of IC, there is no bandying Order and law, hence the statement, the Fool has said in his mind there is no GODbesides this you still did not answer my direct question. We know you dont like his conclusions, but is his process science, is he doing science in his work, Yes or No? Since things are here and here in an orlerly and law abiding fashion, the question, did it need to be designed is obviously Irrelevent. the only two logical question would be, are they a product off themsevles or were they createdI dont know why any thinking person would continue to use the example or analogy of the coin being tossed, when that analogy is quite false and has idiocy written all over it. it should be obvious even to the simplest of minds, you cant start your analogy that is attempting to demonstrate design is not possible, by using the example of a designer and his action of tossing the coin. how stupid is that?Yes of course it is possible, there is no designer, thats what makes the possibility of design very real. the valdity of evolution rest with its process, the validity of Design rest with its process. Soley natural causes is a principle taught as science. both sides should be presented if they are interested in objectivityYou clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes. so is order Of course its real. All conclusions are real, the question is whether it is demonstratable, it is Youve got it backwards. harmonny, consistency and unification are the drivers of order. Complexity or IC is another way to define the order . Order does not need IC to explain or support it. It does that by itself. Youll get it after a while. Just call me the ole seed dropperYou would need to demonstrate order does not exist and that it is not actually order, to demonstrate that design is not possible.The only possible attempt is that attempted by Ringo, to reword it and or ignore it altogether. Both failed as I demonstrated in my post to him Since you paid no attention to my question concerning whether Behe was doing science in his method. Ill ask you this one again. Is there a differnce between a process and a conclusion?Do you understand that you are asking me to falsify my conclusion, when you are only ATTEMPTING to falsify your process?Do you understand that both our processes, order and change can pass the falsifiabilty terstDo you understand that neither of our conclusions can pass the falsifiability test, because of the definition of Null hypothesis I presented to you from WikiDo you understand that both our processes exist in, for and by, the same natural world/Do you understand that our conclusions, process and science are in no way different?Indeed how could they be It has nothing to do with smugness, its simple reason and reality. Think it outDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No apology necessary, you cant "stick your nose" in an open fourm, thats why its a forum.fair enough on your approach above, but it appears you have jumped in not, reading possibly what has already been writtenHow can there be no falsifiablity test for IC, if you believe you and others have demonstrated it to be false. Wouldnt that be it?Again Im not asking whether you agree with his conclusions concerning, IC or design. Im asking simply are the methods he uses to examine the natural world, scientific in nature and practice, his conclusions aside It may not be suffiecient for someones opinion, but it is certainly sufficent for the establishment of evidence, in the nature of a valid conclusion, as to the source and origin of all things. And that is the truth and reality of what we have to work with, if one does not believe or include the written inspired word. I do, you dont, so I have to meet you on your turf.In this instance you MUST make a clear distinction between your opinion and prejudices verses what is rational, believable, evidential against the natural world and any conclusions concerning it.When it is all set out rationally, you will find that both our procesess (not conclusions)involve the same methods and models. You could not demonstrate this otherwise, as is indicative of the fact that, no one will provide a logical reason as to why behes methods are not scientific approaches, conclusions aside of courseIts easy to claim something is not science, but you have to demonstrate in a logical fashion Zen evolution has nothing to with whether ID is true or testable. there not related directly Zen the question at present is whether Behe or scientist of his calibur are doing science, not you testing his conclusions or presuppositionsZen think about it logically. If you believe you have falsified his position on the physical aspects of his research, then of course it would follow logically that he has/had a testable hypothesis, even if you dont agree with its physical tenetsWhich means at bare minimum he is doing science.IC is not the driving force for the design principle. You cant falsify order, because it is true, the same as your change and heiracry principleall we need now is to detemine which conclusion, one or both are acceptable against the available evidence. can you guess what the answer might be. Hey you got it, its both of themDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Come on now, tell me truthfully, your reallly blond right? Only a dizzy blond would make such a goofy statement. Ringo, I hate to burst your bubble but dog biting men is not an order of anything, its an occasional accurance. If however, dogs on all occasions bit men, instead of licking, sniffing, and not biting men, that would be order.they would need to do it consistently and and on all occcasions, that would be order and law. Thats what we see in nature and in natural things, unwavering, consistent and purposeful order.So when you compare this type of order with other order, it is unmistakenly order.The first principle of camparing one order w/ another is are they constant, consistent, harmonious and follow a specific pattern for thier individual organism. In other words they never changeStarting to get it? Well I gave you perfectly valid answer, you circumvented it, dismissed it an never refered to it, then turned right around and gave me an illustration of the same type I provided you.Ringo the laws of the universe and nature are constant, irrevocable and unchanging. the order in those laws is excally the same.
How you measure them is the same way you would measure your 2x4. First you establish the fact that such constent rules and order exists, as does your board. These rules of course do exist.then you apply the measuring rod/tape in the form of say an airplane, to test and use said laws. If they are constent, consistent, unwavering and orderly, then the machine will continue to operate with no fear of the laws changing.ringo thats why we give them these designations, the words order and law accurately describe what THEY DO AND WHAT THEY ARE.Perhaps this time you would care to actually address what Ive stated here, as it not being a measuring rod.,ringo, dog biting man is not an order or a lawDawn Bertot

Ringo, there is no such thing as "word order", that is not a natural physical reality. The words or phrase, dog bites man, is not a reality, they are contirved abstract ideas and terms. Our concepts, terms and imagined words dont define the reality of order, youve got it backwards. The Physical realness and eality of order and its physical consistant motions are what define our terms, not vis versaWe give reality those terms, because the physical realities are actually happening, in the affect of order and law.Therefore the expression dog bites man and man bites dog,, bite man dog etc, cannot be used as a valid analogy in an atttempt to demonstrate the suggested subjective nature of order itself, which is a clear physical reality.You would need to, actually in physical form, demonstrate why what is happening is not happening. You cant just do it with subjective terms by moving them around.As ive already demonstrated, if you want to apply those subjective terms and phrases, as an example, dog bites man and man bites dog, to the actual physical reality of order, they wont work that way either, due to the fact that there is no order or consistency, even in your abstract idea.besides being abstract concepts, the conclusions of that illustration dont even match the physical reality and examples of order and law in the nartural world Wrong, it is a physical reality. Comparing one thing with another has nothing to do with the immediate and identifiable, reality, consistency and harmony ,in the natural world, that brings about the countless, respective, organisms and life forms in existenceIf you could demonstrate that those things didnt actually have order and that that order didnt come to a clear purpose, you might have a point. How will you remove the reality of order in the natural world, it a physical and logical impossibilityLets assume, that there were only one life form in existence in the universe and it was a human being. Why would I need to campare it with anything else to know that there was order in its makeup. if it functioned harmoniously to even a relative purpose and that order was visible, identifiable and testable by experiment and reason, comparing it with something elese would not remove that FACTorder is a thing because it is a physical reality. Thats why subjective attempts, such as yours above, that are not reality based will not work to remove the force of its actual existence. You need to overthrough its physical reality, not just throw realitve, rearranged terms at itNow pay close attention, here is the single most powerful argument in existence, because it is reality based, and deals with existence itself"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by thiings which are MADE, (original word means ordered), even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20Order or Law is a reality by the very nature of its existence, its a physical reality. It cannot be dismissed by argumentation, subjective terms or in argument form. Any argument would need to include an actual physical example of non-order.In other words, a person has no excuse for ignoring such an obvious existence. All attempts will fail, either physically or rationally.the only way to dismiss the reality of order, is to imagine its non-existence and as I have demonstrated that doesnt work in reality Ringo, when you start with a false premise, its easy to assume there is no answer to your query. Your assuming that an inanimate object ONLY can be used as a tool. Well of course that is not true. do you not concsider your BRAIN a tool to measure, consistent, constant, harmonious activity in the real world.First demonstrate that only an inanimate object, has to be the rule for a tool, to measure things, then your argument will have some validity. The quantitative result of order is consistent, constant and harmonious behavior, that is a part of the actual reality of the natural world. Are you prepared to DEMONSTRATE, not just assert that such observations are not a real thing, quantitative in nature.Please demonstrate that the results of order (physical realities) and observable law (another physical reality are not a reality, real in character and quantitative in nature.Any thinking person would easy realize the quantitative law in nature, if for nothing else it is physical in nature to begin withAgain Ringo, quantitative and qualitive are abstract terms. Reality defines their existence, not the other way aroundDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

sorry for the lateness of my response, graduations, travel,etc.This is not my discussion its Fivers I love the way you guys debate here, (or should say dont debate),you ignore responses and points, throw out a few insults and call it goodPointing out the way that scientists or whoever, measure objects is not the same, as I am sure you know, as demonstrating why that is the only way to measure reality.you first need to establish in some logical manner, why that is exclusivley true, to begin with, and why I cant measure, study and evaluate the order in nature by witnessing its consistent harmony, in to many objects and organisms to mention.Here is an example. What physical 'tools' does a pshychologist use in evaluating, the reality of a persons mental problems. Is there a catalouge number for his tools? Or are we not going to consider a pshychologist a scientistYou see Ringo, you cant just assert that, the only way to measure reality is with a 'tool', you have got to demostrate it. the brain is a 'real object', used to evaluate and measure real things. You just dont like it because it is counterfactual to your borrowed arguments and position and because you have no actual response and you know itNow youve made an attempt in your imagined order of imagined word order. But as I pointed out, you illustration is not valid, because it is not reality itself. the words, 'man bites dog' and 'dog bites man' are simply abstract concepts in the form of words, arranged in an imaginary way.IOWs, they have no reality themselves, as say, the order in a cell in the body, which is real and measurable with insturments and my brainif on the other hand we want to say that they have reality, beacuse they are spoken and heard, then we must acknowledge that they only have reality, due to a designer, in this instance, you, because you designed them correct.Either way you approach it, you are incorrect. Of course I have done this and demonstrated it with stinging accuracy. Now, the way for you to falsify it, is to actually respond to my argument, example and illustration and show why:the brain is not physical, why it is not a tool, why I cannot use it to measure relationships, consistency and harmony in physical objectsYou see Ringo in debate you have to acually respond to illustration, examples, arguments. You cant just skip over them and hope no one will notice. Thats why there are give to you to begin with Unless you can demonstrate that this is the only way to measure anything, and respond to my actual arguments, in response to your query, then it follows you are still only working with a faulty premise Like the word 'science', all you have done in this instance is unwarrently restricted the word 'Measurement' to mean only what you want it to mean. fortunately reality and reason will not allow you to do this in any logical fashion.I believe the ball is in your courtDawnBertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.