So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

Since people are still trying to foist off ID as science, I'm bringing this thread to the top again. My question has yet to be answered: just exactly how science is supposed to work if it were to include supernaturalistic "explanations" as ID requires it to and as proponents of ID keep demanding

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

Refer to the previous post for a repeat of this topic's opening post. In more than 200 replies, nobody has been able to present an explanation of how science is supposed to include supernatural-based hypotheses and be able to continue to function effectively.In the meantime, Dawn Bertot has repeatedly claimed that design is detectable and must be included in science. In Message 418 of ICR Sues Texas, I replied to her with a simple question, one much like the question in my opening post, though a bit narrower in scope: Of course, she has ignored that question so far and will undoubtedly continue to ignore it. That does not make that question and its answer any less vital to her case. For design to be incorporated into science, we must be able to work with it. We must be able to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. That means that there absolutely must be a methodology in place to reliably and objectively detect the presence of design in naturally occuring phenomena. Without such a methodology in place, design-based science will be unable to function.Of course, I do not expect Dawn to come up with that methodology on her own. But with all the ID literature that she must have read (most of her posts appear to be regurgitations of such readings), surely at least one ID writer must have presented such a methodology at least once. It is after all such an important and fundamental question that it makes no sense at all that all ID writers would constantly avoid it. Unless, of course, they're all just blowing smoke.

To repeat yet again:What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.

In Message 77 of the topic, Support for Louisiana repeal effort, marc9000 claimed to be able to answer the question of the OP of this thread, which no other creationist has been able to respond to. In my response to him (Message 81): We eagerly await his response. And based on over 30 years of experience, will not be surprised to find it extremely lacking, or even non-existent.

From Message 95:

That actually looks like some thought had been put into it. Heads and shoulders above the bullshit you've been posting so far. I have to work to resist the temptation to ask you where you cribbed it from.There are a few things in there that should be discussed, but unfortunately it's totally off-topic. Your "reply" does nothing to answer nor respond to the question. But it does nothing answer the question! To remind you of the question, again, here it is, again, from Message 77 of the other topic: Now, did you see that? You stated that you can answer the question. Now, let me present that question to you again with emphasis added: Clearly, your "reply" does not even begin to address the question, let alone make anything close to an attempt to answer it.I really shouldn't need to paint a picture for you, so I'll just repost, again, from the OP, Message 1: And at the end of the same post: Try it again. Please make an honest attempt this time.

From Message 239: As I already told you, I work for a living and I work long hours. Plus, this as a duty weekend. I just have time to begin to respond.Back to the message this is a reply to: Wasn't accusing you. It was just highly uncharacteristic. Kind of had the same effect as when Eleanor Abernathy (AKA "Crazy Cat Lady") who normally yells gibberish and throws cats at passers-by suddenly stops for a moment and makes a lucid and even insightful statement. Yes, you are correct. What you presented was an excellent example of how ID works, which incidentally is the way that creationism has been working all along. Like so many other deceptive creationist arguments, that argument is based on false assumptions about how evolutionary theory says that evolution works. It's yet another strawman argument (YASA), false, misleading, intended to deceive its audience. A prime example of what ID has to offer us!Have you ever wondered why IDists refuse to "do science"? Why they refuse to conduct any actual research? Why they refuse to publish their work in the scientific community? Well, Dembski's reply is supposed to be that he's making too much money writing books for you to buy that he doesn't want to waste any time published any research. But other than that, obviously they refuse to publish research because the scientific community is the last audience they would ever want to have read their stuff. Because the scientists would be able to immediately see their the IDists' charade. IDists would much rather only present their nonsense to the general public who are much easier to bullshit and to deceive. Of course, another reason why they don't publish is because they never conduct any actual scientific research. The only way that any ID nonsense could ever qualify as science is if the IDists can deceive enough non-scientists into passing laws that would arbitrarily change the nature of science.Also, why should they make assumptions about evolutionary theory when all they have to do is to learn what evolutionary theory actually says. Only by addressing what evolutionary theory actually says can they ever begin to hope to defeat evolution. Of course, if they were to tell you what evolutionary theory really says, then all their arguments would crumble away.BTW, if you want to gain an understanding of how probabilities work in evolutionary theory, read the first half of Chapter Three of Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. It's the difference between single-step selection, which is the make-or-break, start-each-time-from-scratch method that Dembski describes and cumulative selection, which is what life uses to produce each new generation. It's truly amazing how different they are. So what's stopping them now? Do you think that students are being taught only science and nothing else? Assuming the same kind of schedule I had in both junior and senior high, science is only one of six different subjects they take every day. Do you think that they're not allowed to go home to be influenced by their families? Do you think they're not allowed to read or watch TV on their own? That they're not allowed to talk about new ideas with others? That they're not allowed to be involved with their family's own choice of religion? If their religious community is one that promotes creationism and its new guise, ID, then they're already being exposed to those lies. Why are you just singling out science? Because you don't understand it? Science only has one short part of their day during which it has a lot of subject matter to teach. Why take any of that time away for religion that they're getting on the side anyway and for much more of the day?Also, that religious material, of a Protestant subset, you want brought in is not universally accepted by all students. What about the Catholic students? Or the Jewish and Islamic students? Buddhists are pretty flexible, but what about the Unitarian students? Religious instruction of children is the prerogative of the parents. Why do you want the state to take that away from the parents?Again, science is neutral about religion. It is the same for everyone regardless of what their religion or religious beliefs are. You cannot possibly introduce religious instruction into the science classroom and make it fit all. And what each scientist's beliefs are depends on the entire person, not just the scientist within him. Bullshit! My question was specifically about how supernaturalistic hypotheses are supposed to operate within the scientific method!Even if you want to claim that your response of "let them pick other paths of inquiry and we'll still call it 'scientific'" were true, it still begs the question of just how the scientific method is supposed to accommodate supernaturalistic premises and hypotheses. You're just trying in vain to stave off that most fundamental question that demands to be answered. And that no creationist or IDist has answered.You claimed that you could. We're still waiting.This window of free time is now closing. Gotta run.

I discovered UUism in 1991 and also discovered that I had been one for the previous 30 years. I've heard that the old-time Unitarians weren't very comfortable about the merger with the Universalists back in 1961. And while the religion seeks inspiration from many sources, truthfulness and honesty are also important, so "creation science" and ID are not popular.In saying that the Buddhists are pretty flexible, I was talking about the reaction to having somebody else's religion being taught to you by the state. By my understanding, being a Buddhist does not exclude you from also being of another faith, so from the Buddhist perspective one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist.However, I also understand that the Gautama Buddha had advised against believing in the gods, because that will only distract you away from the path to Enlightenment.

No, you have not answered that question. Your repeated attempts to avoid answering it speaks volumes. Now you are just plain lying. In the other thread, you said that the question was not on-topic and that it should be moved to another more appropriate thread and I agreed. Now that we have done just that, you are trying to claim that the question needs to be moved back to the topic where we both agreed it was not on-topic!Stop your weaselling and answer the question! Your attempts to confound and confuse aren't fooling anyone. Just answer the question! If you are unable to answer the question, then simply admit it and give the reason. A little basic honesty, please! What other question? Both are the same question Stop trying to weasel out and answer the question!And just what do you call wanting to have religion injected into the chemistry and English curricula? I reposted what had brought us here as well as the OP question, since I have to constantly remind you what the question is that you keep avoiding. Stop trying to weasel out and answer the question! What "double standards"? The fact that ID and creationism can't be considered science because they don't do science? And please, not more of your bullshit! That "one man" who happens to be Phillip Johnson, spokesman for the Discovery Institute, speaking for the Discovery Institute? IOW, he was not acting on his own as you try to imply.Yet again, I must repeat what I have already written. Message 1 -- emphasis added:

quote:

---

Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.

​

Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.

​

Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.

​

. . .

​

ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.

---

Message 27:

quote:

---

Specifically pertinent to the question is the line of questioning regarding ID's goal of requiring science to include supernaturalistic explanations, specifically the "explanation" of "Goddidit". Specifically:
Exactly how do they intend science's methodology of hypothesis building and testing to function with the requirement that it include "Goddidit"?
Just how exactly are we supposed to test "Goddidit", as the current methodology requires?
Just exactly how is "Goddidit" supposed to raise new questions which help to direct new research, something that science depends very heavily upon and which is readily and amply provided by the current methodology?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not serve as show-stopping dead-end to all scientific investigation?
Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not kill science?

---

Message 180

quote:

---

Exactly! If they want science to use supernaturalistic explanations and hypotheses, then they absolutely must offer some kind of guidelines for doing so. Science has been so incredibly successful and productive by not incorporating the supernatural, how is it supposed to function and continue to be productive after being forced to incorporate the supernatural? I contend that it cannot and that incorporating the supernatural will kill science.

​

Even besides the ultimate outcome, ID's imposition of the supernatural on science would present the more immediate need for a supernatural-based scientific method. I've already described the basic methodology of hypothesis building, testing, and refinement leading to theory development. And I've already pointed out that supernaturalistic hypotheses cannot work because we have no means whatsoever of observing, measuring, or detecting anything that's supernatural, nor can we even possibly determine whether the supernatural even exists. Without the ability to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis, the methodology screeches to a halt.

​

Now, could an ID advocate please describe how the scientific method could successfully use and test a supernaturalistic hypothesis. Or describe how the ID literature describes the scientific method successfully using and test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? And if no ID advocate can even begin to offer such a description, then why advocate the incorporation of the supernatural in science?

​

Or another bit of scientific methology: the controlled experiment. In a controlled experiment, the experiment is run multiple times (very often in parallel, such as in testing the responses of bacteria to different substances). You want to test the effects of a particular factor, so you run the test incorporating that factor and you also run the identical test without that factor (this is the control group). Then you compare the results of the two sets of tests to determine the effects of that factor.

​

So, how do you run a controlled experiment to test the effects of some supernatural factor? First, how do you ensure that the test group does have that supernatural factor applied to it? And, more importantly, how do you ensure that the control group does not have the supernatural factor applied? And how do you determine which supernatural factor is (or is not) being applied?

​

A possible solution that comes to mind are to use magical invocations, preferably combined with the sacrificing of the right animals to the right gods/spirits. Though how then are we to know the right invocations and the right choices of gods and sacrificial offerings?

​

Or you could simply pray fervently that your experiment will work. I'm sure that that approach is very widely used, especially in school, though its effectiveness is extremely doubtful.

​

Or, to ward off the supernatural factor from the control group, you could draw a pentagram on the floor with salt and place the control group within it. At least that's what's done in cheesy movies.

​

This is very important, because if you cannot control your experiments, then you cannot do science.

---

Yeah, the same "Wizard of Odds" who gave us that deceptive travesty you opened with. Let's look at it:

quote:

---

Intelligent Design continues to look for function where nonteleological approaches to evolution attribute clumsiness or incompetence.

---

YASA (yet another strawman argument) misleading and deceptive description of evolution.Nor is actual evolutionary theory (as opposed to ID's ridiculous strawmen) at any loss to examine a trait's functionality. Science can already do the job while ID not only has nothing more to offer, but rather wants to detract from science's ability to do its job.

quote:

---

Because Intelligent design adds rather than removes tools from the biologists tool chest (supplementing material mechanisms with intelligent agency) intelligent design can subsume present biological research.

---

What tools does it add? The ability to propose supernaturalistic hypotheses that are untestable. As well as closing the door on further research by claiming to have found the answer, "goddiddit". As well as preventing any future research on this "already answered" question, since that research would be characterized as a direct attack against God (by the time ID has seized the power it seeks, it can then drop all its pretenses of just talking about some undefined Designer).

quote:

---

Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That's part of keeping the program honest)

---

What criteria for detecting design? What are they? That is the other side of my question: just how are we supposed to detect or determine design? It's been asked on this forum repeatedly, but IDists (Dawn Bertolt specifically, who claims to know the answer) have not only refused to answer, but even claim that they do not need to provide the answer.If you know just exactly how we are supposed to detect and determine design, then do please provide it. Oh yeah, that's right! You'll just do everything you can to weasel out of that question too.

quote:

---

Intelligent Design can also function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them.

---

Huh? How? Since ID closes the door on future research, how could it possibly guide future research anywhere except into the ground?And just how is ID supposed to in any manner add to finding engineering solutions that normal science could not? Science has been doing that job just fine and with great success long before ID came along wanting to muck everything up. Yes, as I already explained. Dembski's platitudes are meaningless and raise all the same questions and problems that I have been providing all along. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all. Just how the hell is IDist science supposed to work?Project much? Never mind the scientists who are atheists. What about all the other real scientists -- who far outnumber scientists who are atheists -- ? The "findings" of the new breed of ID "scientists" will be completely useless for them to work with. And with certain areas of research deemed closed by ID, such that trying to reopen those areas would be dealt with as an attack against God, how could real scientists continue to operate as before.ID seeks to fundamentally change the nature and operation of science. And those changes will render science inoperative. So then, yes, that would kill science.

Yeah, when I read Dawkins' description of his WEASEL program, I couldn't believe it. So I wrote my own -- necessary, because Dawkins only described it but offered no code listing. Besides, I think he did it in BASIC, because mine written in Pascal succeeded within a few minutes rather than take the entire lunch hour as his did.But even though I saw it for myself, I still didn't believe it. So I analyzed the mathematics of the probabilities. Interestingly, it turns out that it becomes more improbable for every step and path to fail than it is for at least one to succeed.Ian Musgrave also experimented with Dawkins' WEASEL and collected programs written by others which he has posted on his "Almost Like a Whale" website at http://health.adelaide.edu.au/...m/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm. My analysis of my MONKEY program is at http://health.adelaide.edu.au/.../Musgrave/essays/monkey.txt.And there's nothing atheistic about it. It's just natural.

No, it was quite clear that you were implying that. If you did not imply that chemistry students must be taught about God being the source of those properties and reactions that they're studying, then please reveal and explain to us the completely different idea that you now claim that you were promoting instead.

I think I see the source of your misunderstanding. What you call "supernatural", the rest of us call "unknown" or "not yet understood."What we call "supernatural" are things and events and forces, etc, that are outside the realm of the natural such as spirits, ghosties, and sundry gods. Since our senses and instruments cannot observe, measure, detect, or even determine the existence of anything supernatural, there is no way we can confirm or disprove any hypotheses we may form concerning anything supernatural. Hence, science cannot deal with the supernatural and including the supernatural in science does nothing to aid science, but rather would only serve to hinder it.What you are calling "supernatural events" are really natural events and phenomena that we do not yet understand and the explanation for which is still unknown. Predominately in most of human history and even to some degree today, people will attribute to such natural events and phenomena supernaturalistic explanations as a way to try to explain them. While that may give those people some kind of comfort, those supernaturalistic explanations do nothing to actually explain such natural events and phenomena. The only thing that will explain them will be for science to investigate them and find their natural causes. Indeed, supernaturalistic explanations may even hinder that scientific investigation, especially when people have attached religious significance to their supernaturalistic explanations.It is not a situation as you appear to describe, wherein the supernatural gets promoted to natural once we understand it. Rather, the situation is one in which the old do-nothing supernatural explanations get tossed aside and replaced by the actual explanations, which so far have all been natural.

Nearly four years and nearly 400 messages. No creationist has been able to provide an answer. Several attempts to change the question, but no answer.There is still no known way in which science could use supernaturalistic hypotheses nor to survive the attempt.