Bush promotes ID

I keep hearing evolutionist claim ID is not science, but never back up the claim.I hear evolutionists say IDers don't do real science, but they do in fact. It's not that they aren't doing credible science. It's that evolutionists don't like it.I hear evolutionists demand why don't they publish in peer-reviewed evolutionist journals, and when someone does, they say it should never have been published and try to ruin the editor's career that published.All this makes me think evolutionists are a bunch of hypocrites afraid to allow for honest assessment of the facts and debate.

Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.I would also characterize much of the research in QM, as involving experiments to determine, how design mechanisms work, not that physicists think of themselves as IDers, but that's what they are researching, imo.

Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.I would also characterize much of the research in QM, as involving experiments to determine, how design mechanisms work, not that physicists think of themselves as IDers, but that's what they are researching, imo.

There's no such thing as evolutionist nor ID science. It's just science.There are definitely scientists arguing that the data fits better with creationism and/or ID.

You don't understand ID. Since you claim ID consists of merely arguing complexity necessitates design, your post is somewhat meaningless.To help illustrate that, if there was greater simplicity, there could still be Intelligent Design, even with very great simplicity.Now, one argument is indeed that irreducible complexity is evidence against evolution and forensically is strong evidence for ID, but it's not complexity itself per se.

OK Charles, show how many speciation events it would take to evolve a bird from a fish, and then show to what degree those speciation events have occurred.Can you show even 1% of the speciation events that would be necessary?Can you even demonstrably prove one speciation event in that chain has occurred?

Some forms of ID would be falsifiable if we observed species evolve from a chemical mix or macro-evolution in areas that are considered irreducibly complex, and we could reasonably define all of the mechanisms involved.

Imo, creationist journals do count. Sorry, but you lose on that one.We all know what evolutionists do to editors that publish ID papars, as we saw last year to the editor that published an ID paper.His career is now threatened and maybe irrecoverable.So please excuse me if I take your claims of needing to publish in evolutionist journals with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't consider evolutionist journals good science when it comes to evolution and somewhat farcical on the whole subject in fact.

You would have to determine a way to eliminate that likelihood.

Maybe you didn't read my posts. It doesn't sound like you have.No is disputing that within a framework of accepting ToE, scientists do real scientific work, and some of that I have used myself on these threads.But I do dispute is that evos are as open to accepting papers that are openly critical of ToE, regardless of the evidence.It appears to me, judging by the hysterial reaction and intellectual jihad against the publisher that dares publish an ID article last summer, that the message is clear among the evos. You publish an ID paper and your career will be threatened and in jeopardy.So when it comes to certain areas, I don't believe mainstream science is objective, nor intellectually honest.Take my analysis of trying to determine how many transitionals it would take to evolve a land mammal into a whale, and then how many fossils we should expect to find based on fossilization rates of whales and perhaps semi-aquatic mammals.Are there any studies by evolutionists that make any estimates along these lines?If there are not, then why do evolutionists speak of a handful of transitionals as well-documenting whale evolution and of being indicative of what ToE predicts? Those, to me, are false claims on the part of evos.If they want to see if the preponderance of proposed transitionals fit the predictions of ToE, they should at least have some estimates on the numbers of transitionals there should have been and the numbers we should have expected to find in the fossil record by now.No such analysis, by evos, that I can find exists.Why is that?How can they call such claims valid science, in terms of the fossil record lining up with ToE, if no such studies exist?Could it not be that massively higher numbers of transitional fossils are indeed predicted, and thus the numbers of theorized transitionals, taken as a whole, would be strong evidence against ToE.These are the kinds of analysis and studies evos should have all over the place, to verify their claims, but instead they PRESUME ToE with absurd dogmatism, and never seem to do the necessary work to verify their claims.There are exceptions. I think the field of genetics is an exception and that genetic research is conducted in a highly rigorous manner to test evolutionist assumptions, although not necessarily ToE as a whole, but aspects of it.