The Science Method: How IDists And non-IDists Apply It

In Message 310 Tanypteryx said: This thread is proposed to address IDist and non-IDist science method and it's applications.Here are suggestions for things to discuss and debate in this thread.

In Message 82, Taq alleged that no evidence of such a designer was ever cited. I responded by engaging debate, citing supportive evidence of the Biblical ID, Jehovah, an example being the Exodus etc. My MO was to meet Taq's challenge by evidencing Jehovah, the Biblical IDist rather than debating about what appears to be impossible. Was my method of response to Taq's challenge the appropriate response in the science fora?In Message 290 Bluejay listed the conventional SM along with the application of the four SM requirements for establishing a theory. Bluejay's commentary on the ID site, IDEA's application appeared to indicate that Bluejay considers IDEA's ID attempt to follow the SM to be insufficient. If that be the case, must the ID SM and/or the application of it be different than that of non-IDists? What do you think? -----Unless we can come to some consensus on what applications of the SM are to be recognized as legitimate, there appears to be no possible way for IDists to engage in ID science debates.If arguments by renowned ID scientists who apply the ID interpretation in research is inadmissible as legitimate hypotheses, how will lay folk IDists such as members of EvC.com ever hope to legitimately dialog and debate ID topics in science forums?Admin's preference of forum requested for this topic. Edited by Buzsaw, : Noted In ContextEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix no "/" with the closing "[i]" coding error.Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct gramatical errorEdited by Buzsaw, : Revise OP and TitlesEdited by Buzsaw, : clarify phraseEdited by Buzsaw, : Fix "SM" in Topic Title and OP

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

Behe has strong connections to the ID perspective. As best I know, Baumgartner has no obvious connection to the ID perspective. Morris (senior or junior?) and Gish are old school young Earth creationists who have no connection to the ID perspective other than maybe the seeming willingness of some YEC's to glom onto anything they perceive to be anti-evolution, even if it does noting to support their YEC perspective.So, how are Morris and Gish in any way "ID scientists"? My inclination would be "Great Debate", to minimize the dog piling and in general increase the topic organization. Do you have an opponent in mind, that you would like to "GD"?Adminnemooseusps: That Buzsaw/Minnemooseus "Great Debate" topic is currently still open (it was closed for a while). Minnemooseus could handle a response from you at that topic.

"John R. Baumgardner is a geophysicist, young Earth creationist, intelligent design supporter and Christian fundamentalist." (color emphasis mine)I've read up on and followed the work of Morris, Gish and ICR for a half century, having been on their mailing list and a subscriber to their "Acts and Facts" monthly for a number of years. They are both staunch literalistic ID proponents, ascribing to sudden intelligently designed creationism, i.e. the Genesis record.Morris and especially Gish have learned that in order to engage successfully in debates with counterparts of ID, they must do so with a "bare bones" argument, as Gish puts it. ICR's approach to teaching and advocating ID is apply it generically, if you will, not solely on the theist position.They contend that the debate must be argued on the basis of no designated designer. They teach and debate on the merits of the observance of stasis in the fossil record, enormity of complexity observed and things like that.For this approach, they have come under criticism from other ID evangelicals who limit their teaching on the Biblical record itself.They get criticized from both camps. Secularist opponents refer to Gish's stuff as The Gish Gallop. This on Morris and this on Gish. In the Gish link, refer in the right column of the page for the live interview list. There are several on Gish's ID approach.Though I often refer to the Genesis record here at EvC, in my view, ICR's approach is the best for their students as well as engaging in debates etc. With all due respect, I much prefer the open forum where I can mix it up with all who are interested. In my view, this is an important topic needing input from varied POVs. The Great Debate approach would be one notch higher than consigning messages to "Peek," for the membership at large. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Touched up formatting a bit.

The above is an article by William A. Dembski, in reply to Henry Morris. This part jumped out at me:

quote:

---

Criticism 1: Morris regards intelligent design as not faithful to the full Christian revelation. For instance, he is concerned that "many Christians now seem to think that [the intelligent design movement] has freed them from having to confront the Genesis record of a young earth and global flood." He sees intelligent design's focus on an unspecified designer--indeed, a designer who need not even be a theistic creator God--as disingenuous and a matter of expedience, done simply "to build a very large tent, allowing anyone except pure materialists to take refuge there." Moreover, he implies that intelligent design advocates are guilty of snobbery, stating that "ID advocates would be embarrassed" to be associated with young earth creationism's "Biblical literalism."

​

Response 1: Morris fails to address the fundamental issue here, namely, what is the proper scope of design-theoretic reasoning. In inferring design from aspects of the world, we are always looking at finite arrangements of material objects and events involving them. There is no way, logically speaking, to infer from such objects to an infinite, personal creator God. Thomas Aquinas understood this. Kant understood this. That's why intelligent design is not a biblical or religious doctrine. Morris is right that anyone except pure materialists can take refuge with intelligent design. This, however, should not be regarded as a bad thing. Creationism is a package deal, with a particular interpretation of Bible being part of the total package. Intelligent design, by contrast, is a partial truth, not the whole truth.

---

1) Despite your protests to the contrary, I see you as a YEC. Old Earth/young life is YEC. Go to our "Great Debate" topic if you wish to dispute this.2) Comments on the above quoted? Also the topic subtitle question. We already, more or less, have such a topic going on - It is a big mess and I don't see your proposal turning out any better. I'm trying for a "less messages, better messages" approach.Adminnemooseus

I wish to focus on how SMs of IDist hypotheses would be incompatible with SMs applicable to non-IDist hypotheses.If things in the cosmos or in biology are relatively suddenly created, showing the appearance of age, how can the IDist ever hope to satisfy the guidelines required for non-IDist SMs?An example for the cosmos would be the sun, allegedly created on day four the the Genesis record. It would needfully have to show a greater age than that of a protostar, which I believe is some 30,000,000 years.An example for biology would be Adam, allegedly ID created on day six of Genesis 1, showing the appearance of age.So far as I am aware, there has never been a thread for debating whether SMs should be one size fits all, so to speak.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

By "SMs" you mean scientific methods? The plural of scientific method? As in multiple scientific methods? If so then you need to describe these scientific methods.My intuition tells me that all you're really talking about is that you want the scientific method (of which there is only one) to include the supernatural. If so then you need to write a new thread proposal that says that.

Your declaration that there is only one scientific method essentially declares that it is not debatable. Therefore I withdraw my proposal to have this thread promoted.

This is a good illustration of a YEC perspective of ID. Certainly, if God or some non-god could put together a full grown man from raw elements, I would gladly concede that he was not only an intelligent designer but also an extremely amazing engineer to actually execute the design.But creation ex nihilo has nothing to do with the ID of Michael Behe. However wrong Behe may or may not be, there is some substance there, over which to actually have a scientific discussion.How would you propose that we have a scientific discussion about a creation ex nihilo event? What evidence could you produce, beyond "the Bible said so", to support the reality of this event?Adminnemooseus

The one and only ex-nihilo science method would be to research supportive evidence of the designer.But the Genesis record is not necessarily ex-nihilo. Adam was allegedly formed from the elements of earth, requiring a period of time, expending energy from the designer who found it necessary to rest after the feat. Life and breath was allegedly exhaled from the designing creator into the formed body which brought it to life.I had not intended to hash this all over in my proposal for promotion of this topic. If you care to delve further into it, perhaps it could be moved in the Great Debate Forum for further discussion and debate between you and me, though some of the discussion and debate would needfully be why there would not necessarily be only one science method.The nearest model which comes to mind for the Genesis designer would be intelligent mankind who has the intelligence to create orderly things via energy using available matter and energy.This, however, would not model creation of life itself. That would needfully require the SM of supporting evidence of the existence of Jehovah, so far as the Genesis record goes. That has been my SM, if you will, in debates, but of course that is not acceptable in a fora which allows for one only SM.Perhaps this factors in why qualified ID science debaters are hard to come by or to retain in the EvC science forums. ICR, aka, scientist types would needfully apply an SM applicable to a YEC intelligent designer in order to participate in some science threads. No?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

Why do you think the scientific method prevents anyone from doing this? Read the title you gave this thread proposal. It says there's a difference between the scientific method employed by IDists and the scientific method employed by scientists. What is that difference? List the steps of the accepted scientific method, then list the steps of the ID scientific method so that we may see the differences.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Ex nihilo was Adminnemooseus's term and not mine, to begin with. Both would be ID.Applying Bluejay's Message 290 to the following hypothesis:Observation: Intelligent agents produce complex, specified information (CSI).Mankind: Complex systems and physique of the human body, especially the DNA and brain.Hypothesis: Jehovah the Biblical god created Adam in one 24 hr day from elements in the earth, by work, expending energy and breathing into the body the breath of life. Jehovah rested after the work was finished.Experiment: Research fulfilled prophecy, archeological sites, cultural phenomena, historical records for evidence that the Biblical god Jehovah exists.Conclusion: Substantial researched evidence has been cited supportive to the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah.Differences:Things like reverse engineering and other such tests would/ could not apply to the ID SM in the above example.The Biblical ID SM would focus on evidencing the designer by methods listed above.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This would seem to fit in fine as an extension of our already existing "Great Debate" topic: What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only).My there message 30 awaits your reply.Minnemooseus/AdminnemooseusAdded by edit:In reference to the above cited "Great Debate" topic - The there proposed results of your creation model makes no sense relative to the worldly record of what happened. I think we need to resolve that situation first, before we go on to the issue of documenting the existence of the intelligent designer mode of your creator.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

So the steps of the ID scientific method are the same as the scientific scientific method. Again, look at your title. Your title claims that the methods differ. How do they differ?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I answered that question in Message 11. I meant that ex-nihilo (not compatible with Genesis 1) and the one day work/matter/rest) are both ID SMs, the former one being sudden from nothing and the other involving time, energy, work and rest. OTO, the non-IDist SM differs from ID SM. In my previous messages I alluded to the ID creation of the man from earth elements, via work, etc, in one day. The SM of that hypothesis would differ somewhat from non-ID hypothesis. No?If I remember correctly, no method has ever been considered scientific in the EvC science threads which includes researched evidence for the existence of a designer such as Jehovah of the Bible. Aren't we debating my proposed topic in PNT?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

Hi Buz,You're confusing the scientific method with your own example of ID research using the scientific method. This is a brief statement of the scientific method:

1. Observation of phenomenon.
2. Form a hypothesis about how the phenomenon works.
3. Design and carry out an experiment to verify the hypothesis.
4. Analyze the experimental results to see if they confirm the hypothesis.

How does the method you're proposing differ from this? The title of your thread is How SMs Of IDists and Counterparts Differ. If you really did intend to talk about how the scientific methodologies of ID and science differ, then your opening post needs to describe the difference. That means you need to list the steps of ID's scientific method so that we can see what the differences are.But I don't think that's what you really want to discuss. I think you've mistitled your thread proposal and that what you really want to discuss is whether the supernatural should be assumed to exist when conducting scientific research.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director