The evidence for design and a designer

Dawn, how do we determine whether or not something has been designed?How do we do so objectively?Until you can tell us how, all your ramblings are pure bullshit.

OK, just exactly what are you trying to get them to accept? And exactly why are you trying to get them to accept that? And what do you expect them to then do with it?We've read the Wedge Document. We know that ID's goal is to transform science into a design-based science. Why?Because a design-based science would work much better? No, we know that that cannot be, because there is no known way for a design-based science to be able to function. I started a topic asking for a description of the methodology for a supernatural-based science to operate -- you are, after all, talking about the supernatural, aren't you? After more than 200 messages, not one single description of a methodology for a science employing supernaturalistic-based hypotheses. Not one. Similarly, both I and others have repeatedly asked ID supporters for a methodology for identifying design. The individual who started this very thread, Dawn Bertot, has adamantly refused to even begin to address that most fundamental question about ID. As far as I can tell, even the founders and leading writers of ID have avoided answering or even addressing that most fundamental question about ID -- if they ever had, then their followers here would have known about it and would have presented that in response, but they never would.Instead, isn't the real reason for trying to transform science purely ideological and religious? Are you also intent on destroying science for an ideology? Because, while science is one of the most successful human endeavors in human history, a design-based science cannot possibly continue to function and thus ID's planned transformation of science will in fact destroy science. It would be like adopting the ideology that gasoline engines must run on water, but without ever giving anybody any hint at all as to how that could possibly be accomplished. Would you be willing to ride on an airplane that takes off on a tank of aviation fuel and then in mid-flight switches to water? Why not?And why adopt the ID ideology at all? The IDists and the Wedge Document both harp on the spread of materialism and the need to fight and reverse that spread, but they don't know what they are talking about. There is indeed philosophical materialism which is pretty much what they describe, but then they claim that that is what science is based on. That is completely and utterly false! Instead, science employs methodological materialism, which is very different from philosophical materialism.You claimed: Again, that is completely and utterly false! The real reason why they don't include God or any other of the gods or the supernatural is the very simple and purely practical that there exists no methodology for including God, gods, or the supernatural in science. IOW, there exists no known way to observe, measure, detect, or even determine the very existence of the supernatural. To put it into the simplest practical terms: there exists no way that science can work with the supernatural. Hence, science must employ methodology based on that which we are able to observe, measure, detect, etc, AKA methodological materialism. Science does not and cannot make any statement about the possible existence of God nor any of the rest of the supernatural, but rather science is simply stating the simple and direct fact that science simply cannot deal with the supernatural. Period. Nor can science possibly disprove the existence of God nor does it want to ... only "creation science" has been able to offer proof that God does not exist.Contrary to that, the leading IDists insist that science is based on philosophical materialism, whereas in fact science is of complete necessity based on methodological materialism. This means one of two things (feel free to offer other possibilities):
1. The leading IDists don't know what they are talking about.
or
2. They are lying to you.Not that the two options are mutually exclusive.