The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

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.

No, you've got that backwards. IDists start with a different conclusion and then look for whatever they can find to support it. Even if they have to make most of it up (which they do). Or lie about what they do find (which they do).Just like most creationists.Let's face it, if they had arrived at their conclusions from their observations, then there would be some kind of record of their progression from observation to conclusion. You know, actual research. And if that actual research existed, then they could readily present it in support of their position. Which they don't do, which is a strong indicator that any such actual research does not exist, which is a strong indicator that they had never progressed from observation to conclusion.It's the same thing with the "Two Model Approach's" (TMA) "creation model". If creationist had actually formulated an actual model, then they would have had to have done so based on evidence, which means that they would have actual evidence to present for their "creation model". However, despited their repeated claims of having mountains of evidence for creation, they never ever present even a single shread of that purported evidence. They will even go so far as to become rather belligerent in their refusal to present any of their purported evidence. Obviously, they have none.

You mean actually do science by verifying their conclusions against the evidence? Heaven forbid! (quite literally in their case)Again, this story which was attributed to an essay by Carl Sagan:

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

---

Another example of arriving at conclusions solely by logic is theology, none of whose conclusions can be verified. As long as ID has nothing but logic to offer and absolutely no effective methodology for detecting and determining design or for incorporating design in science, then it can never be the equal of science, but rather merely another form of theology.Nearly 600 messages and no such methodology has been offered by its most vociferous -- albeit incomprehensible -- proponent here, despite repeated requests and pleas that the methodology be presented. Still appears that no such methodology exists. And that ID quite obviously does not belong in the science classroom, except as a bad example so that the students can learn to distinguish pseudo-science from science.Edited by dwise1, : "You mean"

Your style was described by an antecdote in my logic textbook. A trial attorney is handed his briefs for the case he is about to argue. It simply tells him: "We have no case. Attack the opposing attorney."This topic, your own topic, is for presenting the evidence for design and a designer. Nearly 600 messages and you nor anyone else has presented a single shread of evidence. You have also resisted presenting any kind of methodology for objectively detecting or determining design, something that is absolutely essential to be able to do if we are to be expected to incorporate design into science.As much as you may hate the scientific method, that is the methodology of science and it is highly successful. In the science classroom, the scientific method is a very necessary part of the curriculum. You want to rid science of the scientific method and offer nothing whatsoever to replace it with? What you are trying to push as being on a par with science is instead the opposite of science. The closed thing that ID is on a par with is theology, though the logical rigeur of theology far exceeds that of ID, whose main use of logic is in its efforts to sway public opinion to help it destroy science.In order for ID to qualify as science, it must do as Son had described. And for it to even begin to do that, it must have a methodology for detecting and determining design.So just where is that methodology? You don't have one, do you? That means that you do not have a case. Undoubtedly, your response will yet again be a textbook case.