Does ID follow the scientific method?

The "scientific method" and the "ID method", are one and the same in usage

Focusing initially on the basics and fundamentals of any type of investigation in establishing facts.

Also, what are the total amount of terms (ie. observation, experimentation, etc) one can throw at an investigation before it becomes exclusive.

Where would the scientific method in general terms, leave the ID method in the dust

How on both sides the parties are limited in thier conclusions

It is easy enough to demonstrate that a select group of "scientists" have made, what is very simple very complicated, in an effort to exclude any understanding of things and the conclusions of things, except thier own interpretations

IMV, the thread will be worth it, but it will be short lived, because my proposition is so simple, tons of posts will not be necessary to establish this fact

A thread contrasting two methods needs to describe each. Please describe the scientific and ID methods, then explain why they are the same.

Dawn Bertot writes:...premises (conclusions)...

... of change by natural selection and or law and order, hence design.

It is my contention that these basics will remain the same upon investigation, so as not to be distinguished from the IDMThese basics are of course:Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions

...law and order, hence design...

There is absolutely no justification for classifying the IDM as religion. One cannot even begin to support such an accusation, given the BASICS of each approach

So if SM and IDM follow the same exact method, then they must be "one and the same," just as you stated. There would seem to be nothing to discuss. Perhaps you want to discuss to what extent ID actually follows the scientific method?

Dawn Bertot writes:I thought that the contention was that the IDM is not science, are you now saying it is?

It is my contention that these basics will remain the same upon investigation, so as not to be distinguished from the IDMThese basics are of course:Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions

So I suggest to you that what you really want to discuss is to what extent ID actually follows SM.

Dawn Bertot writes:I am happy to discuss it from this perspective, If that is all you will allow.

I think it would be inadvisable to promote this thread until we've established that we both understand the topic in the same way. In your previous message there appeared to be some confusion between ID and the IDM.

Hi Dawn,I composed a reply to reinforce your proposed new topic. I see that I don't have posting privileges in that thread, so I'll copy it here for you to take note of. If you'd like to use it to respond to admin again, please feel free, and I'm not looking to be recognized for it, but you may publicly acknowledge my PM to you if you wish. Or if you'd like, I'll propose the new topic. Let me know - thanks!Marc__________________________________________________Hello AdminAs someone with a similar worldview to Dawn's, I believe I can clear up the confusion, and show this to be a legitimate topic. I believe what Dawn has done is project many assertions made throughout EvC forums to this thread's opener without explaining them, and that's where the confusion lies.Dawn writes:
In general any theory or ideology that attempts to explain the physical world will have the same basic tenets of fact gathering. I will suggest what I believe to be the basics in this connection and then we will see if those can be built upon, so as to completely distinguish the scientific method (SM hereafter refered to in this thread) from the IDM (Intelligent Design Method)It is my contention that these basics will remain the same upon investigation, so as not to be distinguished from the IDM.Marc writes: It is constantly claimed on these forums and throughout the scientific community that ID is not science, that it is simply a religious or political movement. Dawn seems to be claiming that ID can be studied scientifically - that it can be separated from religion.admin writes:
So if SM and IDM follow the same exact method, then they must be "one and the same" just as you stated. There would seem to be nothing to discuss.Marc writes:The scientific community (verified by the courts) declares them to be nowhere near one and the same. It would be a good discussion to go into detail about exactly what separates them. One of the main assertions about ID is that it is promoted by religious people. That has no bearing on the mechanics of its study. Evolution (Darwinism) is generally most forcefully promoted by atheists, and they claim that their personal belief has no bearing on the mechanics of its study. There should not be such obvious double standards in science, in public establishment.admin writes:
You seem to be describing a topic that is not the same as your title. Are you trying to argue that science and ID use identical methods to arrive at different conclusions?Marc writes:They use identical methods to explore different paths.Dawn writes:
There is absolutely no justification for classifying the IDM as religion. One cannot even begin to support such an accusation, given the BASICS of each approach.admin writes:
There is no need to mention religion.M writes:The scientific community constantly mentions religion whenever the topic is the study of ID.admin writes:
No one is saying that IDM isn't science, for a couple reasons. First, you only just introduced the acronym, this thread hasn't been promoted yet, and so one one has ventured an opinion about IDM yet.M writes It is a GIVEN on scientific forums. Every evolutionist is saying that IDM isn't science.admin writes:
Let us not try to put too fine a point on it and just accept your characterization of the SM. And if ID follows the exact same methodology as science then I'm sure everyone would agree that that is exactly what ID should be doing. Certainly if SM and IDM are identical then no one on the science side would assert that IDM isn't an appropriate scientific approach.M writes The science side and the Dover court decision declared that any IDM isn't an appropriate scientific approach.admin writes:
I don't want to waste a lot of your time, so let me be frank with you. I don't think you'll ever succeed in having another thread promoted here, for two reasons:1) You have a serious problem expressing yourself in English in a way that can be understood. Witnesss your recent confusion in thinking that premises and conclusions are synonyms.2) You refuse to acknowledge any problem. You can't address a problem you refuse to acknowledge.Marc writes:If you and Dawn both acknowledge that I largely cleared up what you perceive to be an "expression" problem, will you promote the thread?

evolution side is saying that ID (Intelligent Design) is not science.The evolution side is not saying that IDM (Intelligent Design Methodology) is not science. They're especially not saying IDM isn't science if it is true that it is identical to SM (Scientific Method).

ID (Intelligent Design) is the theory that the apparent design in nature is in reality actual design by intelligent entities. On the other hand, IDM (Intelligent Design Methodology) is a term you invented yourself that describes the methods used to develop this theory, and you defined it as being synonymous with SM (Scientific Methodology). ID and IDM are not synonyms. One is a theory, the other is a method.