Summations Only

We can certainly show that your approach is not evidence and not science. You declare that physical entities have law, order, and purpose without ever defining what an object would look like that lacked such features. You then declare that any object having such undefined characteristics are the product of intelligent design by fiat. No reasoning. No potential falsifications. Just because you say so. That is not science.

Science is not about falsifying reality. It is about falsifying our models of reality. Your model is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. It is always necessary for scientific theories/models to be potentially falsifiable. We then test these models against reality. We are not trying to falsify reality. We are trying to falsify our models and theories. Then just call it reality instead of LOP. Now we need to move to your contention that reality requires an intelligent designer. How do we test this model, and how is it falsifiable?

There are a few things that I will directly address as part of my summary. As many of us have pointed out, scientific theories must be falsifiable. This is known as the null hypothesis. In Dawn's case, the null hypothesis is law, order, and purpose coming about through unintelligent causes. Dawn must be able to describe experimental results that could potentially produce observations consistent with the null hypothesis. Dawn is incapable or refuses to describe these experiments. This is why ID is not scientific. This is why LOP is not evidence of intelligent design.It gets even better . . . Well, I guess science would be a lot easier if you got to declare your model as true to avoid the scientific method. However, I think this one sentence wraps things up nicely. This one sentence reveals that ID in no uncertain terms. ID is a dogmatic belief, one that is held to be true without ever testing it or challenging it. Another example of ID not doing science. Once you have observations the next thing you need is a testable hypothesis and a null hypothesis. This is followed by the development of experiments that can test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Dawn doesn't do that. Dawn skips right to the conclusion. That is not how science works. We don't NEED a conclusion. Science doesn't NEED a conclusion. There are many things in science for which the only answer is "I don't know". What science does need is testable hypotheses.Speaking from experience, the most difficult part of science is experiments. It is the elegance of your experiments that separates the great scientists from the shlubs. Anyone can come up with an idea (i.e. hypothesis). Anyone can declare by fiat that something is true as Dawn has done. What separates the scientist from the guy shouting on the corner is experimentation. What separates the great experiments from the poor experiments is the way in which they EQUALLY test the hypothesis and null hypothesis. This is baloney. The only logical course is to construct experiments that will test both ideas. Scientists have done this with evolution. They have tested it from one side to the other. The theory has passed this testing.What about ID? As Dawn has illustrated so well, ID is untestable. Whenever we ask Dawn for experiments to test ID it is met with insults, as if we are asking for something so stupid that only someone with 3 frontal lobotomies would even think of asking for these experiments. Dawn is so deeply entrenched into a dogmatic system of belief that the very thought of questioning the conclusion is met with hostility.At the end of the day, all we need is Dawn's statements that ID can not be tested or falsified. That is enough to demonstrate that ID is not science, and that LOP is not evidence of ID.So why do I say that LOP is not evidence of ID. Quite simple. ID is not falsifiable. In order for something to be evidence it has to be risky. There has to be a chance that your hypothesis is false, and the experiment has to be capable of producing that falsifiable evidence. For example, a forensic scientist would not cite the mere presence of DNA at the crime scene as an indication of guilt. Instead, the forensic scientist has to amplify specific sections of the DNA and compare it to the defendant's DNA. There is a chance that the two will not match. There is a risk involved. If LOP is going to be cited as evidence of ID then Dawn has to describe experiments where LOP could be shown to come about by natural processes. Until that experiment is described and run then Dawn can not cite LOP as evidence for ID. No one is investigating ID. No one is constructing falsifiable ID hypotheses and testing them through experimentation. You, yourself, deny that anything like this can be done. Hence, no investigation. It is indoctrination. Period.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.