ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

I'm afraid you're on your own, Trixie. I don't speak Teslaese. Most definitely. This ties in directly to what I feel they have to do to convince me that they're scientific: they have to take an actual position, other than "not evolution."Everything that evolutionists teach is open for the public to read and criticize. Every detail of our theory is in the public realm. There aren't many details in IDology, and the few that there are aren't very detailed. Science requires substance, which means you have to produce a definitive hypothesis about the age of the earth or about the exact mechanisms behind natural phenomena or about anything else.No amount of experimentation can possibly support the hypothesis that facts are irrelevant. A theory agile enough to function the same in either a billion-year timeframe or a ten-thousand-year timeframe is not defined well enough.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

That's a good insight, NosyNed. The points that the ID proponents are arguing aren't actually the points that evolutionist teach, anyway: they are simply wanting God to be a part in it, too.I'm a Christian myself, and I believe that, even if God did tweak anything, He used a natural mechanism to do it, so we wouldn't be able to discern the difference between 'natural selection' and 'supernatural selection,' anyway, because there legitimately wouldn't be a difference.Keep in mind, this is just speculation, and it doesn't belong in a science classroom either, because it doesn't change anything: after all, in science, it's the causative mechanism we care about, not the omnipotent power behind the mechanism.I wouldn't complain if, every time a Darwinian mechanism came up in class, the teacher told the class, "You can believe that it was God's will for this to happen, if you want." That's essentially want the IDist's seem to want, anyway, and it doesn't require a non-theroetical, bogus theory to challenge teh mainstream views that it doesn't challenge, anyway.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Nonsense. You've failed to discern between the mechanism and the description of the mechanism. When I said 'natural mechanism,' I didn't say, 'as prescribed by Newton,' did I? Newton didn't invent gravity, he discovered it. So, it isn't his logic that dictates how gravitic attraction works or how objects must move through space; it is the nature of the universe (or the will of God, if you want it that way), and Newton attempted to describe it with a mathematical model. The model is not binding on God, but it is quite descriptive of His will, isn't it?Therefore, I am not limiting God by saying he follows set patterns (laws, if you want to call them that). I am merely noting that, from my perspective, He seems to be following set patterns, and seems to have been following them for quite some time now. I am further asserting that I believe He will continue to do so, for he is "the same yesterday, to day (sic) and for ever (sic)." (Heb 13:8).This is why I insist that IDists produce an alternate mechanism for their model of the origin of the universe: it is the only way that they can actually disprove our model.Edited by Bluejay, : Addition

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Tesla, I have already stated explicitly that I do not speak Teslaese. You're going to have to translate this into English for me. Furthermore, what I can understand from your post doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.I don't recall having written anything in that post about disproving God (But, I did change it while you were responding, because I accidentally hit "enter" before I was done proofreading. Forgive me if I've confused you). I also remember stating explicitly that I believe in God. Science does not attempt to study God, but to study what mechanisms He uses in His work. Therefore, produce a legitimate, testable mechanism by which the "Big Poof" model of Creation works, and I will vote to have you permitted in a science classroom.P.S. This is getting off topic. Please stick to what Minnemooseus wanted: evidence that would make ID into science.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

So it has an 'n' in it, huh? I'll remember that next time.Actually, this was a bit more like the English that I know. I don't know what "adding based on lack of proof" means. However, I still think that this is a very good example of the same assumption you've made too many times in the past. You wrote "I believe..." and then you acted on that belief. Much of what you write in these forums (at least from what I've seen in my week here) is based on your belief system, and is not based in solid facts. (In fact, I remember you being censured for that multiple times). I've been through this thread three times now, from start to finish, and I can't make out anything from your posts but restatements of your belief system. It's still possible that I've missed something, though, so please draw my attention back to the proof that you provided.At the risk of deviating too far from the discussion topic, I will attempt to explain a little of how science is done. To start, you have to make an objective observation of the world. You cannot, you must not start from your personal belief system. Writing from your belief system is called "bias." In order to show genuine, legitimate evidence for something, you have to support it with something outside of your belief system. This is called "independent evidence" and makes your statements unbiased.If the only evidence you have hinges entirely on assumption of your belief system, there is no way for anyone else to verify your findings. Therefore, everything you say is simply biased speculation.As scientists, we try very hard to strip our research of biases. We aren't always successful (unfortunately), and most of us have our own opinions anyway (see the long series of papers on Homo floresiensis, the "hobbit," over the past two years for a good example). But, whenever personal opinions or belief systems (i.e. biases) creeps in, they have a tendency of making themselves bigger than the available evidence, and often blind us to the observations we could otherwise make if we were willing to admit that we might be wrong.What Minnemooseus is asking for is for that kind of evidence: the kind that doesn't require you to first espouse a particular interpretation of the Bible (of which there are many). He asks for evidence that could stand on its own, without having to be explained or interpreted for people to understand it.I apologize if I've been too rude to you in this or other threads, but I hope you can see now why we don't want to listen to you.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Tesla, you're stil arguing your belief system, and now have told me how you came to this conclusion, but you still haven't produced the evidence. You've only assured me that this evidence exists.I think I'm officially done trying to argue with you, because you claim to know scientific things, but you just don't. You list off a bunch of big words (whose meaning I'm not convinced you know), and you keep saying T=0 (which, on the Celsius scale, is pretty cold) and "looking at God scientifically," and other stuff. But...THIS STUFF IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!!!If you want us to believe you, stop telling us that you have proof and put the proof in front of us!That's enough for me. On to other things.Buzsaw, thank you for being candid. Thank you, also, for understanding the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis."Let's work with the Buzsaw Hypothesis a little bit. In order to make a theory out of, you'll need to test it. How do you test it? If the Buzsaw Hypothesis is true, what could we predict about the kinds of evidence we'd see in the Earth, in terms of the fossil record, genetics, and other things? If it happened according to the Buzsaw Hypothesis, surely it would leave some sort of mark. Identify these marks.This, I think, is what Minnemooseus was looking for in the beginning of this thread.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

I guess you didn't actually say "evidence," did you? I should probably be more liberal in my interpretations of some things.Still, I think the evidence has to be there. I don't think you get science without legitimate evidence. Granted, there are as many different interpretations of any bit of evidence as there are people who read it. But, when the evidence is based on numbers and observations, as it should be, and not tainted by personal opinions or beliefs, it is hard to dispute.For me, that's the only thing they can do now. I've seen many misapplications of the scientific method, and non-exclusive interpretations of data. They need legitimate evidence.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

The purpose of this thread is to determine what would make intelligent design a legitimate, scientific theory.I would disagree with you. Materialism only states that physical things tend to obey physical laws, and, so far, we've been pretty good at isolating the patterns of behavior in physical things (we call these patterns "laws"). Therefore, there hasn't yet been a reason to invoke a magical explanation.So, it would have to be shown conclusively that some phenomenon can not be (not merely has not been) explained by materialism before another method would be permitted into science. Furthermore, for materialism to be refuted completely, you'd have to show that no physical phenomenon is completely explanable with physical theories.I don't think this is going to happen, so I don't think ID will ever be truly accepted into mainstream science. If this is the intent of the ID movement, I would say they'd have to come up with a legitimate way to study teleology without invoking a "we can't understand God's ways" clause, because it doesn't count as science if they can't.The biggest danger with the teleological argument is that, upon finding no immediate answer, one could simply say "the reason it is this way is because God made it this way, and that's all there is to it." I've seen this line of reasoning in the work of all ID proponents I've read so far. It's called "argument from ignorance," and goes hand-in-hand with its cousin, "argument from incredulity", and it is the biggest barrier to progress and learning that I have personally ever seen. If IDists want me to believe they're real scientists, they have to prove to me that they're going to keep looking for elusive answers, not just shrug and say "God just wanted it that way, I guess" when the answer doesn't jump out at them.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)