Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,280 Year: 5,537/9,624 Month: 562/323 Week: 59/143 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 666 of 1273 (542802)
01-12-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Admin
01-10-2010 7:24 AM

Re: Moderator Request for Specifics
Sorry Percy, I know you don't like replies to moderator messages but I just had to mention the alternative (great I think) ending of the prison joke you told in message 596.
After the warden explains to the new convict that the inmates have assigned numbers to the jokes, our new convict shouts out "One million forty eight thousand, five hundred and seventy six."
Immediately the place is in an uproar. "What's so funny?" our convict exclaims.
"We haven't heard that one before!"
Now I'll slink back to reading this absorbing thread....I might even join in......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Admin, posted 01-10-2010 7:24 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 3759 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 667 of 1273 (542805)
01-12-2010 7:17 PM

Back to the OP?
OK....having read all this thread (OK a lot of it skim read) I've decided to throw my hat into the ring....
The OP asked "What is really ID", and referenced age of Earth, when and how did designer create life, and observations for the answer.
I think all here on both sides would agree that ID is presented as the (supposedly) scientific alternative to the ToE in describing life on Earth. The intention of Philip Johnson et al was to introduce ID into the science classroom as a competing theory against the ToE.
Therefore, to be classed as science it MUST take the scientific approach and no other. If it abandons the scientific approach it can be taught in say religious studies classes - perhaps as a theological mechanism to explain creation......but it cannot be taught in a science class unless it follows scientific methodology.
Let's remind ourselves what scientific methodology entails:
1) Observation of real-life data/events
2) Formulation of a theory that explains the observations.
3) Generations of predication that the theory would support
4) Generation of predications that cannot happen
5) Test the predications against the model, then reject, or tentatively accept dependent upon the real life data
6) Look for other forms of real-life data that support or falsify the model and refine accordingly.
OK then:
For ID to be accepted in science, these science threads, and (most important of all!) in school classrooms, the six categories above need to be adhered to.
1) Exactly what real life events do ID'ers want to use for their model?
2) What is the working model of ID? Is it only "God did it" or something more qualitative?
3) What predications can ID make in support of its central theory?
4) How can ID be falsified - what does it predict cannot happen?
5) How can the predictions be tested against the theory?
6) What supporting evidence from elsewhere can be used to refine the theory?
The ToE passes all these categories and has done so repeatedly for 150 years. It is up to the ID'ers to explicitly say now how each of these scientific investigative steps has been met and passed (with citations please).

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024