Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

I see you didnt pay very close attention in the thread i had concerning the matter of intelligent designThe model is no different than yours, except for the fact that it is not so involved because it does not need to be overly involvedAn elaborate examination such as yours only exists because you examine every detail in nature that is provided in nature.ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design. No other or more involved examination is required to produce this very scientific factHowever, if one does choose to examine closer or over and over the results will be the sameTo deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involvedAll you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or modelNow how in the world would you ever do that? Asserting there is no model and demonstrating it logically are two different things. Try the latterExamination is just examination, no matter the depth or involvementI am surprised you did not learn this from the previous threadFurther, Im not sure how you arrived at the comical conclusion that after discovering the model, that the designer is somehow irrelevent. That doesnt even follow logicallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

But you are missing the point entirely. Asking someone to provide you a model for ID ignores several obvious points1. That you have a model and we do not for the explanation of things, you do not
2. That your model is something more than simple explanations of things, it is not
3. That our model of identifying something is different than yours, it is not
4. That your "model" can demonstrate it is simply and soley natural order, it cannot
5. That your "model" can remove the premise of demonstratable order, or even if it appears to be ordered, it cannotThese assumptions on your behalf, leave ID as not only a model for the explanation of things but makes it as an scientific investigation as any providedUnless you you can demonstrate why the above assumptions are somehow not applicable or invalidDawn Bertot

You clearly dont understand simple reasoning. Showing how he intervenes is absolutely not necessary, if I can demonstrate in an examination and in logical form the order that indicates that he does.Youve mixed up two things where one is not required for the otherHow presumptuous of you Jar to jump from point A to C, sidestepping B, by assuming I need a model other than that which I already haveYou need to demonstrate that my clearly existing model is not sufficient to the purpose that it is provides, to demonstrate clear order in the nature of thingsSince you cannot do this it follows logically that it is not only a Model but it is exacally the same as nyone else usesBesides all of that,what specifically does your "model" provide to us that IDs does not?

My simple friend try and understand how reason and critical thinking works. I have repeadely provided you with a model, by simple examination, observation and conclusions, not any different than yours.If I am making assumptions, yours are much worse and you dont even see itNow watch Dewise, if mine is not a model then show howA. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SMYou cant jump from point A to C by assuming all these things concerning our methodologyWhen you can demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the SM, ie, by soley natural causes is any more valid than the clearly observable order, you will have demonstrated that we have no model and yours is superiorbecause you dont understand simple reasoning, you think you are justified in your assumption that we have no modelShow the above points ot be invalid then you will be justified in your assumptions

So then you wont make an attempt at responding to the clear assumptions on your part I have providedUntil you respond to those assumptions on your part I have provided, then I cant take your assertion serious that we have no model, it is not science and you test things differently than we do and arrive at better conclusionsI say your assertion that I have no model is just that an assertion. If I am wrong them break down those thinngs I provided and show whyIt is a further assertion by yourself that I have provided no modelit is an assertion by yourself that my model is not a modelHere is your opportunity to demonstrate why my above points are not validclear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"Its there for any scrutinyDawn Bertot

Dawn, if you actually have some actual support for ID, then please present it and stop bullshitting. [/qs]dewise, you cant address arguments with assumptions. i have provided you with a method and a model and all you need to to is show WHY, not assert, that those conclusions are invalid.deal with the assumptions I have suggested you are making, then lets see if ID doesnt have a model and I havent presented oneThe educational value is that it is science and it is very logical. You simply dont like it because it implies creation and God. But that is not what the argument is aboutMy guess is that you wont attempt this because you dont know how to respond to that argumentEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You resuse to deal with that I have provided. You are again jumping from A toC. I have provided you with a model and you refuse to show why it in not a modelLets just start there C and please explain via the assertions I accussed you of why what I presented is not a model and scientificGive it a whirl

Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and to which I will be responding as soon as possibleit does not surprise me jar, that you did notDawn Bertot

Not a problemDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I dont know absolutely whether something is designed or not and it is not necessary for me to know it absolutely to know that a method of examination is model for observation and experimentation or that it is soley a result of natural causesThis is ofcourse what I have been asking you all along, what FACTS is it that you have? You claim you have facts. what do those "facts" do for you in answering questions of origination and originsLets try this again. My model is suffiecient in establishing that order and law exist. Your model is sufficient in establishing that things work in a certain manner. this is all either of us has and can conclude from our "Models"we then draw conclusions from those Models as to the nature of that examination or model. Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions. however, now pay close attention, the models will let us demonstrate order on my side and change on your side. these are visible and demonstratable characteristics, not speculation To establish what? And to what purpose? So you have a model, what does it do and how is it any different than the model that verfies Order and lawYour assumption through a lack of simple understanding about reason itself, assumes I am arguing for design or a designer. Im not, thats a conclusion. By the same process of examination or Model, if you like, we reach our conclusions of order and change. This is all mine does and that is all yours does, no matter its technical involvementhence ID is initially established by a scientific examination process (model if you like)by the demonstration of order, verifiable in the same way any FACTS that evo can demonstrate that is a lie and you know it. Order and law exist, whether you believe it a product of natural causes or design. I dont initially see design I see Order and establish it the same way you do any fact derived by your so-called superior modelhere is a challenge for you. Present any fact, not conclusion, derived by the Model you tout, that would be different or differently derived in the same way Order and law are observedYour second assumption is that the "ID model" is derived as a result of ID or creationist thinking, it is not. ITS JUST A MODEL an examination, just like anyother examination, or fact, derived in the same way you "facts" are established And of course this is nonsense as I have just indicated. every examination of physical properties that produces a demonstratable fact (order and law in this case) is science. The only persons that are fooled by the bar (model) you have set are youselves and someone not intelligent enough to not recognize a con job.The only facts that your model establish are those that can be easily recognized by evaluation, ie, things exist, change happened, things are different, things are still happening. Etc, etc, etc.Without admitting it and usually denying it, (by carefully disavowing science reaching conclusions) your conclusion from all of this "Model", you tout, is that the above mentioned things are a result of soley natural causes, which like after establishing that Order exists, we are justified in suggesting that design existsBut, and much more importantly, before either of us get to those conclusions we have already used a model and method that qualifies as science. that is of course, unless you are prepared to admit or demonstrate that Order is not present and Law does not reside in nature.Calling for a demonstration of how God interviens in this process, ignores the very rules you employ in your own research methods and more importanly ignores simple rules of reason. Time, processes, change and order are all present and verfiable by research methods, I dont need conclusions for that to be factIn the absense of that which is absolutely demonstratable I can only rely on the observable and testable. In your case change over time, in mine Order and law of an intricate nature. Neither of these require conclusions or religion. Both are science in actionSorry boys thats the way it is and the proposition I have set out here cannot be demostrated as false or invalidIf you think it can be have at itDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

lest Nonukes claims Ihave abandoned some thread here or there, here we goDawn Bertot writesTaq writesNo taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.
The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites
taq dont use borrowed arguments, think for yourself. test the conclusions of what you believe, carry it to its logical conclusion to if it is valid. think for yourself This of course is just bantering and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID. Your just mencing words. Hypothesis and falsifiability are just more examination. these are other words for examination. Do you stop examining when you start hypthesising. Of course not. We examine you examine .So tell me then, what are the causes of the observations you conduct and what hyothesis and experiments will you conduct to demonstrate the nature of things itself? Your method or model of course can only measure processes, not conclusions.To demonstrate my point beyond any doubt. How will you test the Null hypoithesis against the conclusion of Soley natural causes. What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal thingsYou are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodologyYou are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your processYou are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its processYour ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and validYour ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of thingsAnd finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arenaSince the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science. Your everwhelming and misguided prejudices, notwithstanding Only ignorance or prejudice of any rational thought process would make such a foolish statement. of course it does not jump anything its simply that one does not need to continually keep testing the same evidence and process when we already know order and law exist and are a valid scientific explanation of the nature and origin of thingstell me. in your scientific methodology, once you are certain and sure about a thing and know for sure it is true. Do you continue to conduct new and different test to it or do you use its principles safe in the fact that they are true and that you can proceed with its accurate attributes to apply it somewhere else/ [qs]Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science. [qs] ID, like Soley natural causes are conclusions and only thier processes can be considered science. Since IDs process more than qualifies in this connection, it follows that the process of ID and its conclusions should be taught as science, as are evo and soley natural causes. Why, the same way you test the claim that evo is the product of soley natural causes, by an examination, scientific in nature of the natural world, with processes that are testable to teastable conclusions concerning physical propertiesBy an examination of both individual and countless organisms in the natural world. all of which will result in experiments that demonstrate order and law. if this is not good enough please explain what other test I could conduct, in the SM approach that would validate or invalidate said law and order.Give me an example of how the SMs approach would demonstrate the conclusion of soley natural causes more than it would a designer. What experiments and null hypos would you use. Now remember it has to be more than an examination, for it to be scientificDemonstrate that IDs process (model) is not a scientific approach, to that conclusion. Since it cannot be demonstrated by any scientific method that things were not designed to evolve. perhaps you could describe a test that would take prescedence over IDs approach, to that conclusionSince neither of our conclusions is provable absolutely, it would follow that any valid logical, scientific explanations, should be taught in this connection. if not why not?
Since neither, as the state or country wishes has anything to do with religion, but are physical approaches, both should be taught.It follows therefore that IDs method (model) is real science. Ones method or model does not have to involve detailed explanations and experiments where the truth is already established or where the truth cannot be known absolutely. the process of evolution and IDs model stand or fall together.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

C, try and think outside the box for once in your life. try and think for yourself without using borrowed concepts and ideas. try an be completely rational. Now pay close attention. Every ideology and investigation dealing with the natural world, is dealing with origins, your opinion notwithstanding. Every argument applied to the natural world, has a conclusion twords the origin of things. Yours is soley natural causes, some is design, some is brain in a jar on a shelf, etc, etcofcourse evolution deals with change just like, Id deals with order and law. But Evo still has a veiw to a conclusion. What person finding a briefcase on their stoop, having examine it throughly, then would not say, "I wonder how that got their", or I wonder where it came from. You get the pointFinding terms such as Abogenesis, to imply that the investigation has nothing to do with the conclusion is just plain nonesense. No thinking person would seperate the two and rational and reality will not allow it. Every investigation possesses thee properties my simple friend, if "science" rejects the claims of Id, it is by implication sugesting it knows it is not true and has a better alternative. what is the alternative to ID not being true? if it knows ID is not true then it is saying that is "true", which violates the above principle Come on C, you know this is not a rational response, its an emotional one. Its has no valid argument. Im not "They", I cant answer for them Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion. Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yoursAugustine writesIts clear from this post you are very zealous concering these issues but you do not have the philosophical debating skills to respond to the heart of arguments. perhaps someone else mightthis is good advice from St Augustine, it applies to the specifics of scientific details in their minutness, not to general philosphical applications in the question of origins and the such like.have no fear I will not attempt to discuss for example the details of the thread that RAZD, just opened. However the general principles of this discussion would cover even that discussionNor will I attempt to lecture you on archeologyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Pointing out that evo only address diversification, is not the same as demonstrating that it can logically be seperated as a rational approach, in argument formrepresenting ID as an philosophical underpinning and suggesting that one need not concern themselves the how of or why of a thing, is not logical or resonable.You need to demonstrate this not simply state a fact concerning what evo is or doesContent and color of the case is just the start, its in your face, so to speak. While it may have nothing to do w/ how immediately, it will eventually and cannot be seperate in any logical approach. Wouldnt you agree? Wonderment is not the issue involved. "Scientist" make a boast of being completley accurate and thorough in their approach to the natural world. To do so, an examination into the why is only rational and reasonable in logical formated approach correctHow concsistent is it for these "scientists" to claim accuracy in their SM, then trun right around and claim how the suitcase got there as not important or suggest they are not concerned how it got there, as a part of the scientific processesYour attempt in point out the differnce in the two is noble, but it does not solve the problem from any logical and scientific approach because they confuse the conclusion of ID w/ its approach, they assume ID exponents have "nothing". When in fact the approach and method is exacally the same. The SM in this connection starts and finishes the same wayThey get lost in the details and specifics of an examination of the minutness of the natural world and mistakenly assume that this minutia, is somehow a better process than the general approach of investigation itself.Further hypothesis, tests and retest, will not result in a opposite conclusion of order and law,nor will it give a better or more accurate answer, than the only two possibilites for the explanation of thingsThe reason the ID approach has stood the test of time is because it is naturally and ratioanlly based. This is ofcourse what I have been pleading for someone to do. Demonstrate how an examination into the natural world and its law and order is starting with a conclusiondemonstrate that further investigation and further investigation and testing of the details of the eye for example and how they work together to a purpose, is starting with a conclusionThe truth of the matter is that all people start with some preconcieved ideas. You dont think MR Darwin sat on Gallapogus (sorry if that is not how you spell it) and had all the data he needed to confirm all his theories do you?Further experiments hundreds of years later have proved no better in a dismisal of the order and law to the conclusion of a designerWhat you are actually seeing is a hatred for religion and its tenets, disguised under the academic outcries of foul and unscientific if you feel it is you are free to demonstrate what I have avoided, or any conclusions to that affectPeter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwardsWhen in fact it is only a logical and rational approach to the nature of things. It cannot be accurately demonstrated as invalid, unscientifc (if we use science in its original form) or irrationalI was there in my time in the service, (3 YEARS), in a small town called Brandon, I LOVE ENGLANDDawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic senseAnywho lets see it As far as I know and have accurately demonstrated so does ID, at least in the realistic sense of the words I believe I have done much more than claim it, because if that were not true you would have responded in some logical fashion to my previous post to Peter. As far as I can see all you did was cry foul.I think my first impression of you was correct, while you may be a very fine acheologist, I dont think you really know how to respond to philosophical and rational argumetns concerning the topicAnyway lets seeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How would you proceed if you wanted know where the peolple and their teeth came form, so and so forth, backwards and backwards.Since you have horribly misrepresented IDs approach in your example of the Red hot poker, there is very little reason to respond to an example that is way off baseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.