Does ID follow the scientific method?

In your earlier message you described a couple hypotheses and a couple possible experiments related to ID. Forming hypotheses and performing experiments are part of the scientific method.But in this message you've reverted to Dawn Bertot's approach of simply asserting that ID follows the scientific method. You're arguing that this guy said this and that guy said that, but you're ignoring the central focus of the thread.Evolutionists in this thread have provided a few examples of evolution research following the scientific method, as well as some additional examples of a more general nature. These examples were provided as illustrations of what is being requested from IDists, an example or two of actual ID research following the scientific method.Supporters of ID who wish to talk about something other than examples of ID following the scientific method should not be posting to this thread.I've posted a number of messages to this thread, and I think I've been pretty clear about what is needed, and I think a number of other participants have also been pretty clear about this, particularly BlueJay. It's time to address the topic. If supporters of ID continue to post off-topic I'll just close the thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If Behe was suggesting such a vague and subjective test, then I admit that what he is proposing is unscientific.In which case I am at a loss to know why you brought it up. Death would be part of the evolutionary process. Have you ever heard of natural selection?If you can think of any way that the mere fact of mortality would prevent evolution from happening, perhaps you could bring it up on a thread in which this would be on topic. Your ideas are muddled, but again I would suggest that when and if you ever manage to clarify your thinking on this subject you should find a thread where it's on topic. Well, two things.First, whether these "explorations" follow the scientific method depends on whether they do, in fact, follow the scientific method. If they are conducted by means of gyromancy, postmodern literary criticism, or Biblical exegesis, then no, they don't.Secondly, Behe was talking about something that he thinks creationists might think about doing in the future. If he suggested that one day they might think about curing cancer, would this support a claim that ID contributes to oncology? What do you find missing from my proof? I admit that I did not explicitly state that 1994 is later that the 1960s, or that causes precede effects, or that creationists haven't built a time machine, because I took this to be common ground. And yet we find that the discoveries of the various functions of non-coding DNA were in fact made by scientists and not by creationists, and were made decades before creationists boast that they suggested that it might have functions. To say that, you would have to have some sort of firm conjecture about the designer: for example that he never does anything superfluous to some given purpose which you would have to specify.At that point, you might be on to a testable hypothesis.

Are marc's copious scientific errors on topic? I hope so. Life on Earth inhabits a considerably broad temperature range, from psychrophyllic bacteria such as you might find leaving black sludge all over the inside of an ice machine, to the hyperthermophiles found at sea floor vents as hot as 121 degrees Celsius. Indeed. Evolution could not proceed without death.And of course living organisms do not individually evolve, either. Evolution is something that happens to populations, it's not a process where a single individual becomes a fish, then a lizard, then a monkey. Such explorations have never followed the scientific method. And yet the discoveries you refer to were made by conventional biologists, operating under evolutionary assumptions. ID "researchers" did not make the discoveries.

This pretty much confirms my impression of the so-called relevant parts of your post. All they amount to is badmouthing scientists, on the assumption that the evidence must really support ID and practically all scientists are atheists and are therefore prejudiced against ID.Of course, in reality there are a substantial number of Christians working within science - and ID is a minority even there. Even Behe has moved considerably towards mainstream science from his creationist roots, and away from the mainstream of ID thought.Furthermore it seems that you think that a prejudice in favour of ID is a better basis for scientific judgement than actual knowledge. While consistent with your own methodology that is hardly a reasonable position. The best judges of what is biologically reasonable are those who understand the biology, of course.Finally I should point out that vague suggestions for work that might be done is hardly evidence that work is being done, let alone that it is being done according to the scientific method. This topic is about the methods actually followed by the ID movement, not about what they might do if they decided to follow Behe's program.

Hi, Marc.You've got several responses already, so I'll keep this (relatively) short. You're getting hung up on wording (having seen Coyne speak in person, I also have problems with his way of saying things, and this is no exception)."Biologically reasonable" isn't meant to refer to an audience, so your question---"Reasonable to whom?"---is not important.As Coyne and Orr define (bolded portion in the quoted text), "biologically reasonable" refers to something that occurs under natural conditions, and thus, is a reasonable thing to propose as an explanation for a novel situation.----- -----This is an important part of the scientific method. After evidence has accumulated for a certain theory, it becomes reasonable to use this theory as the basis of a new hypothesis about a novel situation. We can then test this hypothesis in the same way we would test any other.This is the whole reason why we want to make theories: because they help us make new hypotheses and predictions.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

So you admit that ID does not follow the scientific method? An intelligent designer is not part of the observations. In the SM you do not put your conclusion in the observations. Again, a designer is not observed and does not belong in the observations. The BB starts with universe. It does not extend into the era preceding our universe. Also, models are not observations. Models are there to explain the observations. Models are hypotheses which are produced in further steps. Once again, observing letters on a page describing a designer is not the same as observation of the designer itself. How is this analysis done, specifically? What are the null hypotheses, as required by the scientific method? How do these predictions differ from predictions made by hypotheses that do not involve an intelligence?If we observe non-intelligent processes producing order and complexity does this falsify your hypothesis?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This is where the IDM deviates from the SM. It is the same method that Behe uses, and it is both non-scientific and illogical (Argument from False Dichotomy, Argument from Ignorance).The scientific method requires a null hypothesis. That null hypothesis for your method (if it were scientific) is non-intelligent mechanisms produce order. Your experiments must equally test the hypothesis and null hypothesis. You do not do this. You simply assume the conclusion, that a designer is responsible for the order we observe.Let me repeat. Your hypothesis is that an intelligent designer is responsible for the order we observe. The null hypothesis is that non-intelligent mechanisms produce this order. Now, what are the experiments we can run to test both the hypothesis and null-hypothesis? Perhaps you can show us how one can use the SM to do the same for the hypothesis that a designer was responsible for the order we observe in the universe. Afterall, that is the very topic of this thread.

A test needs to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. So far your proposed tests do not do this. Your tests simply repeat the hypothesis and assume the conclusion.

What do you mean by "stops and starts"? Where did Behe ever demonstrate that the development of any system was discontinuous. Notice that I said "demonstrate", not "claim". So what would these experiments look like? What is the null hypothesis and how does one test it? How would this be done? What observations, if made, would falsify the ID prediction? We are not talking about random mutation and natural selection. We are talking about ID and the IDM. This again highlights the problems I talk about in my first post in this thread. When using the SM you directly test the hypothesis under question. You do not test competing hypothesis and then claim that these tests are also a test of your hypothesis.

Then show how they are explored and tested, and show how these tests follow the scientific method. I assure you, ALL scientists want to know what ALL of the functional DNA sequences are in any given genome. The fact of the matter is that no one is using the IDM to deduce what these functions are. If you think I am wrong then please point me to a peer reviewed paper where someone uses the IDM to discover specific function in a given stretch of DNA.

I did not say that chance and order are opposites, they are demonstratable conclusions of the available evidence. Your illustratuion about a 50:50 scenerio has nothing to do with what can be demonstrated LOGICALLY from available evidenceOrder as displayed in the physical properties and the harmony is displays is evidence of itself. Disagreeing that it is not order is not the same as demonstratiing that it is not actually order, anymore than me saying Macro-evolution did not take place is not the same as demonstrating that it did not. I simply believe the evidence for that subject is not as good as that of order and designBut both are demonstratable from a logical and rational standpoint and those are the only two choicesThe point is frako neither position can be demonstrated false or falsified, because they deal with information not now availableAs it stands, only a fool would not acknowledge that there is order and Harmony in that order to the making of very complicated organisms and lifeformsYour missing the big picture Frako, its not a matter of what can be proved, its a matter of what can be logically demonstrated. No one has demonstrated on this thread why the IDM, is not science, why the the tests that Behe are not scientific tests and why its conclusions are not eacally the same as any test by the SMThe conclusions that he draws from his tests and the one I have demonstrated demonstrate that the conclusions from those tests are as valid as any conclusions drawn by the SM and those testsThe fact that no one will directly address this issue, is indicative of the fact that within themselves, they know that logical position cannot be overthrown You consistently deal with and ask the wrong questions. We have already established that evidence for events not now available, is a non-issueWhat is it that the available evidence will allow and teach us? It is, that order is indeed order and harmonious, whether you beliee it was designed or not. You approval of of it as order is not necessary for it to conduct itself in the way it does. It will happen anyway. it is what can be resonable and logically deducedLet me try this one more time. None of the conclusions of the SM can be proven or even absolutley demonstrated, because they deal with evidence about events no longer presently visible to us.So the only questions left are, does the the IDM follow the same pattersn and methods in its application of investigation that the so-called, SM? Are the conclusions from the same method science and demonstratable in he same way, from the methods and the physical evidence. The answer is a overwhelming yesAll anyone has done to this point, is complain that we do not conduct enough tests and that they are not complicated enough to to establish said facts. But no one has demonstrated why for example that the clear observation and study of physical properties, watching its harmony and consistency, to produce living things is not a valid testThere have been no examples of experiments of the SM, presented THAT are so much more involved, that manifest themselves superior to reach any better conclusions.Upon examination of the examples that are offered, they are nothing more than simple experimentation and observation (dressed up eloquently) and with no better results than those provided by a SIMPLE scientific experiment, conducted that comes to the conclusion, of order and design, verses, change and evolutionIf I am wrong please repeate the experiment you provided, that is NOT as I desribed above and is better as science in its application and conclusionsNow watch and play close attention This is why my simple friend, it becomes a matter of reason and what can be logically deduced. You statement above and its implications involve nothing more than assertion. So what is left of what can be set out as probable. Your NEED for a designer is not the same as, what can be logically deduced and set outThe SM for all its complicated methodology is limited in character at this point to provide any answers past what is logically presentable This is exacally my point your assertion of evidence provides no answers up to and after a certain point. The evidence of order and design and its scientific tests are the same and offer the same valid conclusions, based on the same evidence.If not I defy you to demonstrate that logically. But it must be set out in a rational argument, you cant just say I dont like it.Dawn Bertot

this would be interesting to see in logical form, that is you demonstrating something that would be an impossibility, logically. But then I am sure you know very little about actual critical thinkingBertot writes: DA writesSome simplicity is cute in individuals, but as old as you are I am sure it is as ugly as sin. DA, actual evidence for an event not witnessed, because that time has past, hence it is in the past, is an impossibilty. what you evaluate, like ourselves, is present day evidence to establish theories of the past Science nonetheless, correct, and even a SM, not to involved to provide support of a fact. So the cavemen had a SM, but we do not?bertot writes: DA writes:Pay closer attention DA, I said they do not detect the SOURCE of change, not change itself, that part is possible, just like the gazelle. but evolution or change does not tell you where the materials that made the gazelle came fromBertot writes:And herein lies the nonesenseof the people that employ the scientific method. they actually believe they have a monopoly on simple investigation, they actually believe that thier method is superior or better than anyone elses equivolent methodsThis needs to be demonstrated in a logical form or argumentation. Point me to the post, statement, line or argument that makes the SM, better at detecting evidence of evolution by soley natural causes, verse order by designBut after numerous post no one will demonstrate in logical form why the SM is better at detecting information, of past events, different than order and design. They just keep repeating that is conlcusions are superior, but wont explain why they give better answers to questions of originsThey are not smart enough to see that only order and change are the only things identifiable from the available evidencethey are not smart enough to understand or will not demonstrate it, that the SM method offers no better conclusions or explanation of the origin of matter in the first placeBertot wtiedDA writes: Ill tell you what when you start that thread, Ill be happy and more than interested to see that set out in logical form. If you believe that has been done, it is the worst form of speculation in existence. If you believe that has been DONE, it will close the door on my speculation, about you understanding nothing about critical thinkingBertot writes: You are very proficient at claiming that something is not a SM, but because you understand nothing about actual argumentation, you do not understand that you need to break down the example I gave you, of the IDM, in its parts, and then show why it fails as science or a SM . As of yet you have not done that and SHOUTING at an example is not the same as demonstrating it as false or invalidIts interesting that you provide and state that the caveman had a science of investigation. But when I provide a test where we examine in great and specific detail the molecular structure, of any organism, with all its intricate parts working in harmony, to produce another more complicated organism and then ultimately a living thingAnd that i can witness this same order, over and over again, that that is not a scientific test or a SMPlease demonstrate using the definition of science why that is not a perfect example of order and an example of any SMDo you notice that I have never stated or indicated the the examples you provide for a SM are not exacally that, a SM? Because I am smart enough to recognize it as science and your are just prejudice enough to denounce the example I provided as not scientific, because you dont like what it indicates.All you need to do is set out in logical form why the example I provided is not a SM
You do realize that complaining that it is not, is not an argument , correct?bertot writes:[qs]I have already done this and the conclusion of your statement is a misrepresentation of my position
As a matter of fact i have stated numerous times its not about design, initially and directlyDA writes: Did you notice the words Intially and Directly? Those words qualify the meaning of my statementThe conclusion of design, like the conclusion of evolution depend on the evidecne at hand. Since the evidence order and change are present, both design and evolution are logical and demonstratable conclusions and the only ones that can be demonstrated.Outside of the scriptures, they hold equal validity and both should be taught as a science in whatever classroom one choosesDawn Bertot

Sorry, this is entirely wrong.Above I presented a summary of the findings of the Dover trial in which a federal judge determined that ID is religion, not science. That trial also showed why the conclusions Behe reached did not follow the scientific method. Further, it showed that IDers have to distort the definitions of science in order to fit ID into science and the scientific method.You simply cannot accept those findings.That's doesn't make them invalid.Face it, ID is religion lite and everyone knows it. I suspect even you know it but are unwilling to accept that fact.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. its interesting that you give this example, I too often experience this very problem with my conputer after an outageMy experiment involved simply unpluging the computer from the wall and plugging it back into the same outlet, that is before trying to simply turn it back onNow the point is this, while I was conducting my scientific experiment, I stopped short in any further investigation because the methods that I employed were sufficienct to come to a conclusion that was valid and solve the problemDoes this mean my investigation was not a SM, becuase it did not display every single on of the methods advocted by yourselves? Absolutley not?When at an earlier date I said the IDM is the Same as the SM, I did not mean that it was only valid, if followed every single step of that process. You have demonstrated here that hat is not logically necessary if a conclusion can be reached short of thatThe IDM, conducts enough of a test in the examination of the physical world to come to a more than valid and reachable conclusion concering designThe conclusion of those tests is not and cannot be demonstrated to be invalid in any sense of the word Thank you and this is my point exacally. The hypothesis of order is to repeadly watch and test the results of the observable harmony and consistency in its intricate parts to produce another logically functioning organism, then a muti-facited organism. So on and so forthNumerous test can be concducted but the results will be the same. Thats why the hypothesis does not need to be repeatedly tested if the redults are obvious and clearDo I need to repeat the tests that demonstrate the law of gravity. How many times od I need to do it to know it is validDawn Bertot

Those findings are not what I am representing and Behes initial process seems to be different than mine. So address my process and my conclusions, not it or hisDawn Bertot