Does ID follow the scientific method?

Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.

What is your first language?

Not noticeably. So far as I've seen, the "IDM" goes like this:(1) Assume without any evidence that the Bible is the literal word of God.
(2) Lie.The scientific method is rather different. That's why following it leads to different conclusions.

Nature. You are apparently trying to patronize me. This is amusing. Scientists compare the predictions of a theory (neo-Darwinism) with observations of the natural world, and find that they match perfectly.Creationists run like frightened little bunny-rabbits when invited to produce a hypothesis having predictive power; and since observing nature does nothing to support their fantasies, they find that it better suits their purpose to lie about nature --- a practice which would, if anything, be impeded by actually studying it.

You have a funny way of doing so. Why? Because scientists are iterested in the truth, and creationists in defending a dogma. You lie about it being a "clear indication of design". Obviously it is not "clear". This is why the people who study the order in nature overwhelmingly think that creationism is trash, and attribute it to the non-magical processes that actually produce said order. And I have provided you with an explanation: I cannot also provide you with an understanding.If you cannot see the difference between testing a testable theory and failing to test a vacuous and ill-defined proposition then I cannot explain this to you. You are good enough to call me an intellectual; but I am not a miracle-worker.

Also if we could observe that knapped stone tools were only ever produced by other knapped stone tools having sex, we'd know for certain that no-one was making them.

Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you think are on topic.

If only you knew anything about the scientific method, you would realize why this sort of half-baked rhetoric doesn't fool any scientists.But even in your present lamentable state of ignorance, you must be aware that it does in fact not fool scientists, even if you don't understand why not. And if you had a little more sense, that would be a kind of hint to you that there must be something wrong with the garbage that you, a non-scientist, choose to write about science, and that scientists, who know about science, disagree with.

... then we would live in a magic alternate universe where gumdrops grow on candy trees.

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?

No, that's what scientists do. Then creationists pretend that they can prove that this order was produced by an invisible man doing magic rather than by the real factors which scientists know produce it.

Your pathetic ravings were not actually a response to my post either, except in the sense that a flailing knee is a response to a rubber hammer.

No, the question is: what type of test would you need to conduct to detect design in nature? That's design. Not order, not law, not harmony. Design. Scientists have a theory consisting of reproduction, mutation, selection,lateral gene transfer, genetic drift, etc, plus common descent. From this theory it is possible to make predictions about the order to be found in nature. Scientists then test these predictions against reality, and find that they are always correct, thus confirming the theory.Hence they detect evolution as the cause of the order found in morphology, genetics, paleontology, embryology, biogeography, etc.You should be trying to do something similar. First, you need to frame a hypothesis. So far all you seem to have decided is that you'd like your hypothesis to involve design in some way. This seems a bit premature, like a forensic scientist deciding that whatever working hypothesis he comes up with it must involve cheese and aardvarks. Nonetheless, the scientific method pays no attention to the origin of hypotheses --- you could construct a hypothesis by pulling words randomly out of a hat and it would still in principle be capable of investigation so long as its a hypothesis at all.But you haven't got to that stage yet. Instead you've jumped right ahead to believing that whatever your hypothesis will be, it will be right, and indeed declaring that it should be taught in schools, without yet vouchsafing to anyone what it actually is. Which prevents anyone from finding out if it is true, and, indeed, from teaching it to anyone.

No. No. No. No.If there is anything else you'd like to be wrong about, and if it is equally off-topic, you might want to start a new thread.

Did you understand me when I said that if you wanted to be wrong about things that aren't on topic you should start a new thread? Your delusions about cosmology, though amusing enough in their own way, seem to have no relevance to this present discussion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.