Does ID follow the scientific method?

Pardon me being insulting, but it is because your mind is simplistic and slighted, you dont understand the proper method of reasoning, or have the capacity of a rational thought process.I often compare such persons as yourself, to that person that pulls up behind you on the highway, when I am in the slow lane. While they clearly have the ability to pass, yet want to ride your bumper. it soon becomes obvious that they are unable to process what they are thinking and what they need to do it that situation, at the same time.It takes me slowing down even further to get the slow witted person to pass. Dewise, your slow wittedPercy writes:Actually it was was intelligence and survival specialist as a secondary carrier fieldDawn Bertot

Since I have not even brought the Bible up, it would follow that that does not apply to me, correct?More assertion with no answers to my simple questions. Are the basic tenets that we use the same as yours and are they science?If they are not scientific in approach all you need to do is explain why the are not a valid method of logical and science to begin withScience, Yes or No?Dawn Bertot

No they have tried to explain within the process why they believe it is not science. All they need to do initially, is explain why the basics are not a science approachAs I have stated before they are confusing conclusions with approachesIf I do an experiment that demonstrates and predicts, consistent order, or what even appears to be consistent and persistent order, then I have followed every step of the SMYou want to make our conclusions a part of your initial process, whic does not follow logicallyDawn Bertot

Ahhhh the slighted scientific mind, void of carrying things thier logical conclusion.It would be helpful if you would respond to what I said in that post concerning this question, instead of repeating itWe evaluate those physical properties the same as anyone and especially the SM. OB, eval, exper, validation, and predictionAre those scientific approaches or Not?We evaluate design from non-design by the order we gather from our initial scientific approachSince design is a conclusion, like any conclusion derived by the scientific method concerning macro-evolution it would follow that both are a scientific Method, unless you can demonstrate, what we have left out that you include, concerning conclusionsCan you do this, my bet is that you cannotInstead of repeating your questions, could you actually repond to some of the points I am presentingThats called debate, you knowDawn Bertot

Come on Modulous, you of all people I would expect to get these simple logical points. Design is Not a theory based on the idea that it is of an intelligence, at its outset. It is a product initially, of logical, scientific methodology, deducing, by observed order in reality and properties, harmony, consistency and orderThe conclusion of design, is not initially necessary to fromulate a logical observation and deduction, concerning such matters.Those are two different things and one leads to the conclusion. Your assuming it starts with a conclusion these are preconcieved ideas that you have formulated, based on a faulty approach of both science and reason.By the very nature of the case Modulous, how could I use a different approach than youself. the only way I could do this is to make no attempt to explain anything at all. In the absense of this failure, the only thing left is the scientific approach of rational thought process Well here is your big chance to demonstrate from what I have said, why that is not truethe truth of the matter is that you fellas have so clouded the simple term of science and a logical approach, that it is unrecongizable to the simple mind. They actually buy into your jargon and faulty logic There is ofcourse no way for you to demonstrate this logically, especially when we observe that actual physical evidence and deduce its conclusions logiacallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wow you really dont know how to distinquish between thier goals and my points do youC, I am not speaking for, by or through themThere appraoch is different than mineCould you please try and respond to my arguments. m not here to represent themHeck, I dont even know who these groups areThe last persons I ever heard of in this connection was Henry M Morrison and Bert Thompson, which is a member of the same faith as I amBut even Bert Thompsons approach is going to be different than that of Dr Thomas Warren's and others of the same affiliationI cant speak for these people you keep citing and i dont pretend to know what thier goals are or are notDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now take it real slow and pay close attention. By asking me this question you are doing two things. You are asking me in principle to show a test that proves the conclusion of design, even though you did not state it directly, that is what you are after.secondly, You have ignored the fact that my initial approach of observation, evaluation, experimentation and prediction are actually scientific in natureThere are no hypothesis of design, because design like Macro-evolution are conclusions, the likes of which the evidence is not available to witness it directlySo like Evolution, the only testable and falsifiable things are order and law (in my process)and Change and selection in evos process.So why do you call for a testable and falsifiable property of a conclusion in my process but not in yoursHence it follows logically that we follow the same method to produce the same results with the present evidence. One thing for your position and another for mineCan I demonstrate through a scientific approach that order, consistency and rules seem to be present? obviously yes?So if Percy would allow us to speak concerning conclusions I would be happy to do that very thing, but not in this threadDawn Bertot

i wonder why people have to pronunce that they do not wish to do this instead of simply not doing it. reminds you of the guy that needs a crowd to commit suicide doesnt it. Hmmmm?You should have spent your time responding to what I actually said, it would have made a better impression on me that you actually could accomplish such a featDawn Bertot

Wow. First off you are asking me to pass a test that makes no logical sense.ID is a conclusion. like that of Macro-evolution and soley naturalistic causesYou need to ask me to give you an example of IDs methods that preceed its conclusion, which is Intelligent DesignIts initial and basic processes will be exacally like that of the SM. they are basic to any investigationthe hypothesis of observation are order, law and consistency, like that of Change and selection in evo. actually order, law and consistency are always present where, change and natural selction are notThe theory based on the results of said experiments are that deisgn like Macro-evolution are a logical and physical conclusionThe SM has no tests or experiments that make it more scientific in its approach than that of the ID method.If it does, then please present them in a logical argument, to which I will demonstrate that they are not different and not any better in formulating theories You simply dont get it do you. The scientific method cannot pass any of these tests because you are looking for test that prove the conclusion of evolution, by asking me to demonstrate ID, which is also a conclusion. You fellas simply dont see this inconsistency in your approachIf you are looking for test by observation and experimentation, that can demonstrate immediate principles and hypothesis, then IDs METHODS can accomplish all the same tasks as the SM, but neither can go any further or are better than one anotherAnd that my friend is what makes them both science and that is why both should be tuaght in the science classroomDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well most of us disagree, IDs observation is if it looks desighned then it is no parameters are used for what actualy is desighned or not, so it is based on personal objectivity only. Experimentation evaluation i have yet to see any ID experiments and evaluations of this experiment that does not involve magic to fill the holes in id logic. Yes they are but ID does not use them. Yes please do it, please make an observation define what you see, why you think you see that, then desighn an experiment that would prove your claim, evaluate this experiment and then i will provide one that disproves your claim so we can dump ID please play by SM rules if it is disproven it goes in to the trashcan. Well yes until i provide an experiment whitch using the same starting conditions always produces a diferent resaoult. All of it Almost all posts in this tread did in their own way. Give me an example of a theory made by id and i will point out your speculations.

I think that it is instructive to deal with the way science and ID treat this issue.Scientists discovered that large amounts of DNA did NOT code for proteins - and had no identifiable purpose. The (misleading) term "junk DNA" attached itself to the non-coding DNA. It must be noted, however, that not all noncoding DNA is true junk (and this has been known for a long time). Parts of it do play useful and even important roles - but much of it does not.It should be noted that Darwinian theory does NOT predict that there should be large amounts of useless DNA - quite the contrary. Resources expended in duplicating useless DNA are wasted, and thus a drag on evolutionary fitness. The obvious expectation is that useless DNA would be lost.Scientists, of course, did not stop there. They started - and continued - to investigate. To find the mechanisms producing non-coding DNA and even to look for functions (the evolutionary paradigm providing a convenient way to locate likely functional areas - something that ID cannot offer). While function has been demonstrated for some small fraction of non-coding DNA, the majority still remains without known function or even a solid reason to assume function. And ID supporters rely heavily on selectively promoting (and often misrepresenting) the work of these, genuine, scientists."Junk DNA" is also useful for identifying common ancestry, and the real junk is especially for countering creationism. Creationism cannot reasonably account for useless DNA shared between separately created species and this may be one reason why the creationists in the ID movement are especially hostile to the idea of "Junk DNA". Typically IDists try to avoid forming any hypothesis based on design even going as far as to say "Intelligent Design is not optimal design" (giving a pass to any "design", no matter how stupid). However on this issue they have gone to the extent of making the assertion that ALL DNA is functional almost a dogma of the movement.The essay that Marc linked is a typical example of ID propaganda.The title is:

quote:

---

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm

---

But "Junk DNA" is not a "neo-Darwinian paradigm" and it is not dead. You will note that Luskin mainly quote media sources on the discovery rather than actual scientific papers. (And contrary to what it seems that Marc would have you believe it was mainstream science, not ID researchers who made the discoveries that inspired the article).The first study, is based on the opossum genome project. The Wired article that Luskin links to appears to be an ID-friendly puff-piece which says very little about the work (the fact that the article pays as much attention to Meyer's opinions as to the actual findings is proof of that !). If Luskin were offering anything like science (or even good science journalism) we could expect at least a reference to an actual paper.
Compare the Wired article with this, a more scientific look at the same results. And note that it specifically states that the changes occurred in regulatory elements (i.e. elements KNOWN to be functional) instead of using the "junk" term. There is nothing here to help the ID movement's assertions that there is no "Junk DNA" because regulatory elements are nothing new.The other major piece of mainstream science - a study that indicated that a very large proportion of the human genome is transcribed (i.e. it did NOT actually identify functions for DNA) has itself come under question. Contrary to Marc's frequently repeated (and never demonstrated) assertion real science does undergo checks to confirm results (hence, for instance, the fall of "cold fusion" and the reason why the Wow! Signal is not accepted as proof of extraterrestrial life). And the Encode study is no exception - this investigated the results, and came to a quite different conclusion.

Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic, reply, but logically defend your religion. Its funny how upset people get when they feel backed into a corner.You have no observable evidence to support your claim or you would have presented it. The problem is that you place your religion before science when instead it should be the other way around. You're so brainwashed that you no longer question your beliefs. The biggest obstacle to finding the truth is believing you've already found it. I graduated from a pro evolution university and have been through the whole brainwashing process. Have you even for a second put yourself in my shoes.Once again without the silliness and attitude please.

Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic, reply, but logically defend your religion. Its funny how upset people get when they feel backed into a corner.
You have no observable evidence to support your claim or you would have presented it. The problem is that you place your religion before science when instead it should be the other way around. You're so brainwashed that you no longer question your beliefs. The biggest obstacle to finding the truth is believing you've already found it. I graduated from a pro evolution university and have been through the whole brainwashing process. Have you even for a second put yourself in my shoes. No and thats why your the ignorant one.Once again without the silliness and attitude please.

Intelligent Design is such a theory. I dare you to dispute this. The conclusion of design was accepted I was very very careful to say this...twice. "If we agree there is design...", and "Let me remind you that this is all assuming that design exists. The crucial sticking point is the 'Intelligent' part.". It doesn't matter how we arrive at design - the key point is getting from 'there is design' to 'it was implemented by an intelligent agent" which ID has yet to demonstrate using the rules of science.Much of your reply is as if when I said "Intelligent Design" I said 'design'.If you want to have a discussion, you will need to address what I said. Your post is filled with misapprehensions as to what I was saying. I'm persuaded that you don't want to discuss the shortcomings of INTELLIGENT design as a scientific theory (ie., how intelligent design utilises scientific reasoning to support the theory) and just want to talk about how design is practically self-evident again.If you want dispute any of my claims rather than engage in posturing like with "you fellas have so clouded the simple term of science" then I'll be happy to continue spending time on this debate. I have already given an opening explanation as to why I think ID falls short. Show why my objections do not apply, anything else is unnecessary rhetoric I'm afraid. As I explained, this isn't sufficient to be science and eitherA inferences IDers make are not logically valid
B the physical evidence is different than claimed by IDers.If you'd like to provide a counter-example of ID methodology in practice that does not fall into this trap, that might be a start...Again: Just because science uses empiricism (examining evidence) and reasoning that doesn't mean that using empiricism and reasoning is science. It is a specific kind of empiricism and reasoning. It is your claim that ID uses the same rules of empiricism and reasoning: Show us an example. If you really don't know how, I'll show you a scientific example to help you along.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

You seem to have been so far carried away on your own torrent of lies, rhetoric, whining and personalia as to forget to even mention my point, let alone address it.May I take it that you find it unanswerable?