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

I think you have just shown why ID is not very useful in a scientific sense. We have real life questions that we want to answer in the here and now. We call it "doing science". So what is the evidence of this "perfection of balance" etc. ?What you seem to be communicating is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. Rather, ID is a preference based on emotion. Or we can get stuff done like biologists are doing across the globe without any input from ID "theory". We apply the theory of evolution and guess what? It works. For example, an algorithm based on evolution called SIFTER is able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy (source). Do we see any ID supporters using ID to produce protein function predictions? Nope. They are too busy conning school boards and 9th graders to be concerned with actually doing science.The evidence for the scientific vacuity of ID is the lack of scientific output. Like your post above, it is nothing more than flowery language meant to reinforce previously held religious beliefs. Where the rubber meets the road ID is nowhere to be found.

You need to understand what "potential" means to scientists. A theory that has potential is a theory that has the following characteristics:1. Explains the data we already have, and explains why we haven't made other observations.2. Makes testable predictions that differ from current theories.3. Is potentially falsifiable.4. Points to new questions and new research.ID and creationism have none of these characteristics which means they have no potential as scientific theories or areas of research. The whole point of creationism is to stop asking questions and accept dogmatic religious beliefs without evidence or any potential way of testing it. The whole point is that there is no way of determining if it is true, therefore it has no potential as a scientific explanation. Then why has no one done it? To my knowledge, no scientist is basing actual scientific research on ID creationism, and no one is planning to. No scientist is submitting scientific research grants based on proposed research into ID creationism. No scientist is publishing peer reviewed papers based on ID creationism. There is no exploration, only indoctrination. You would think that after such a statement you would describe how it could be analyzed, but you don't. Why is that?

Not at all. We don't know which is why we should be looking into it. The problem with ID creationism is that it says, "God did it, don't question it." ID creationism is a scientific dead end. Based on what? Are leprechauns just as viable as God?

But is it scientific? Not from what I have seen.Your problem seems to be that you confuse "possibility" with "evidence". They are not the same thing. I suppose it is possible that Leprechauns are real, but I can't cite that possibility as evidence that Leprechauns exist.What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer DID IN FACT design life? I am not asking if it is possible. I am asking what evidence we have that demonstrates that an ID was involved. Creation and ID are religious beliefs, not logical conclusions. Even you can not bridge the gulf between belief and science.

Logic does not allow for a possibility to be redefined as evidence.

Can you name any theory in science that explains every single observation? I can't.All theories in science restrict themselves to a subset of all observations. It allows for Leprechauns too, doesn't it? The difference is that evolution is TESTABLE. Design is not. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, for example. Design does not. The theory of evolution predicts that LTR divergence in ERV's should mirror the phylogenetic tree constructed from orthology. Design does not.Design does not make any testable and meaningful predictions, which is why it is not scientific. Then please show us a testable hypothesis and the null hypothesis as derived from "order and design". Describe for us the experiment we can run to test this hypothesis. Evolution would be falsified by a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a bat with feathers, a bird with three middle ear bones, a lack of a phylogeny from orthologous ERV's, etc. There are tons of ways that evolution can be falsified.So would finding a bat with feathers falsify Design?

Then show that logic and reason instead of just alluding to it. Based on what experiments and which hypotheses? You haven't shown that order leads to the conclusion of design.

So why can't Leprechauns be a logical testable possbility? You also need the actual test of design, so you will need to describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the design of the experiment used to test these hypotheses. Where can we find that? Evolution is testable. If we want to test to see if a tree shares ancestry with another tree (their shared origin) then we look for shared characteristics that fall into a nested hierarchy. What test do we do for Design? I just showed that it was. A rabbit in the cambrian would falsify evolution. It is potentially falsifiable. The whole point of testing something is to see if it is true or false.If I found a rabbit in the Cambrian would this falsify Design?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Perhaps you should read the title of the thread? That's what we keep asking you for, the tests we can run to determine if something came from this supposed designer. What are they? You don't need all information to test Evolution. You only need the observations we already have to construct a hypothesis and then design an experiment to create new observations that will test that hypothesis. So how does one do this with Design? What are the testable hypotheses and how does one test them? Testing a law only confirms the law. What we need are experiments that test Design, not laws. It is not the only methodology, but it is the scientific methodology.

How do you determine if something is designed or possibly designed? Could you pick one? And how does observing order lead to the conclusion of design? If you want to claim that Design is scientific then you must strive just as hard to support your hypothesis as you do in trying to disprove it. That's how science works. If you are going to claim that order evidences design then you must show how it does so. On top of that, you must also describe observations, if made, that will disprove your hypothesis. So what are these observations? Sure, it is possible, but how do we determine that it IS due to a designer? What are the experiments we can run to determine this?If I see a rainbow is it possible that there is a pot of gold at the end of it with a Leprechaun guarding it? I suppose this is possible, so does this make rainbows evidence of Leprechauns? Not according to your logic. It is possible that the evidence was planted, and so the very existence of the evidence found at the crime scene is therefore a logical conclusion for the planting of evidence. Is it possible that nature can produce order without the input of an intelligence?

So there is nothing we could ever show you that you would consider not designed, correct?The problem is that this type of Design conclusion doesn't help us explain anything. Crystals form because of physical forces and chemistry. That explains everything we need to know about how crystals form. However, you add "because the designer made them that way" which adds zilch as far as an explanation. Design is superfluous at best.

Experiments are necessary in science. Where are the experiments? You need a method of measurement in order to detect order and eternal matter. This is the same for anything in reality. So what is this method of measurement? What is the experimental set up to detect order and eternal matter? What results would exclude something from being ordered or eternal?Also, you have yet to lay out your premises. If your premises are false then your conclusion is also false.For example, many people pointed to logic in order to conclude that the Sun moved about the Earth. They argued that if the Earth was moving that we would feel that movement just as we feel the horse cart moving as we move about the Earth. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that the Sun orbits the Earth. Their premise was false, as to was their conclusion.So what are your premises, and how do the support the conclusion? All logical propositions have consequences. Those consequences are what we test for in science. For example, the logical consequence of mass warping spacetime is bent starlight. This allowed scientists to test for this warping during a solar eclipse and thus test the General Theory of Relativity. So what testable consequences does Design have? So how do we determine which logical proposition is valid? Please spell out this proposition. Reality allows for a lot of things, many of which never occur. So how do we determine that Design is real, not just a possibility?

That's strange being that without scientific experiments and the scientific method we would not even know the characteristics of matter. And that proposition is what? How does order demonstrate design? If you are going to argue that there is a logical argument involved then you need to set out the premises. Where are they?And how did you determine that order can not arise in the absence of a designer? How did you determine that matter is eternal to begin with? In fact, this seems to conflict with what we know of reality. For example, when an atomic bomb goes off some of that matter no longer exists as matter. That matter is turned into energy. Does this falsify your premises, and if not why not?We also know from particle accelerators that pumping energy into a collision produces new matter. It's like smashing two pianos together and getting 3 pianos at the other end. So where did this new matter come from? How did you determine this? What observations, if observed, would contradict design? That is a logical fallacy, a False Dichotomy. It would appear that your argument is illogical. How so?And why can't order arise in the absence of a designer? Only if you can show that order can not arise in the absence of a designer. If you can't show this then it is not the logical consequence.

History is full of examples where logic did not dictate the outcome. How did you determine that there are only 2 possible explanations, and what are these possibilities? What premise? The former inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree. The scientists working at particle accelerators across the globe would likewise disagree. It has been experimentally verified that matter can be created and destroyed.

So says the person who conflates possibility with reality. We can evidence the unintelligent mechanisms that result in the final product. That is how. We can design experiments whereby these forces are demonstrated. It is the fact that we can make PREDICTIONS of what observations will be made and will not be made based on theoretical unintelligent forces that makes our assertions valid.One of those predictions is that unintelligent chemical and physical forces can create order. We observe this in crystals, as one example.So how is order evidence of a designer?