Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,353 Year: 3,610/9,624 Month: 481/974 Week: 94/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Does ID follow the scientific method?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 23 of 325 (591860)
11-16-2010 1:24 PM

Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
Dawn Bertot in message 15 writes:
​
I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions
​
So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM.
​
I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.
​
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:45 PM Tanypteryx has replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 325 (591973)
11-17-2010 7:58 PM 		Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
11-16-2010 10:45 PM

Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method
​
What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive.
​
OK then, let's get to it.
​
1. What is ID's methodology?
​
2. What is Science's methodology?
​
Please be specific.
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-18-2010 2:20 AM Tanypteryx has replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 48 of 325 (592115)
11-18-2010 9:02 PM 		Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-18-2010 2:20 AM

Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
I assume that Mr Darwin observed things long before he went to the next step correct?
​
Well, he spent a lot of years thinking about his observations, trying to figure out what they meant. During those years he collected many more observations and cataloged everything meticulously.
​
His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct?
​
As others have pointed out presuppositions and the Scientific Method are not synonyms.
​
If I remember correctly Darwin's presupposition, when he start on his journey on the Beagle, was that the god of the Bible had created everything like it says in Genesis. The evidence he found did not confirm his presuppositions.
​
You see thats the problem. Most evolutionist, atleast the hard core ones, assume that thier position involves neither presuppositions or conclusions, but happily and logically they do.
​
Really? Could you give me some examples?
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-18-2010 2:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:48 AM Tanypteryx has not replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 216 of 325 (592717)
11-21-2010 2:10 PM 		Reply to: Message 213 by Dr Adequate
11-21-2010 12:35 PM

Re: Question everything
Dr. A writes:
​
If Intelligent Design is not about design in some way, then you guys have chosen the wrong name for your ideas, and it is not I who have done most to misrepresent your position.
​
Watching Dawn make more than 2250 posts of total gibberish, that even the IDists on EvC do not seem to understand, makes me wonder what the heck his purpose is. He goes on and on about order and law and logic, and now, harmony (and of course, that no one can know anything about past events). I still do not have a clue what these terms mean to him.
​
I think he believes that everything in the Universe is designed, so there is no way to tell the difference between natural and designed. But now he has switched his view and seems to be saying that there is no design???? Illogical.
​
It is funny to read his posts out loud, but that does not capture the hidden humor of all his misspellings.
​
Wouldn't it be great if he hooked up with the IDists at the Discovery Institute? They would go even nuttier trying to communicate with him!
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2010 12:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 217 of 325 (592719)
11-21-2010 2:13 PM 		Reply to: Message 215 by frako
11-21-2010 1:23 PM

Re: ID is not science (again)
frako writes:
​
No i think he is yust making stuff up as he goes along so he does not haveto admit the truth that id is not science.
​
Yeah, except he doesn't know what science is either.
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 1:23 PM frako has not replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 310 of 325 (593193)
11-24-2010 9:13 PM 		Reply to: Message 305 by dwise1
11-24-2010 3:34 PM

Re: Applying The Scientific Method
dwise1 writes:
​
For ID, the null hypothesis is the production of order by non-intelligent mechanisms. Therefore, any experiment that tests ID must be designed so that order produced by non-intelligent mechanisms would be detectable in the experiment. This is assuming that the IDM and the SM are one in the same.
If I may point out, this is precisely the reason why we must know just exactly how to detect and determine design, a request we have made repeatedly of IDists both in this thread and elsewhere.
​
This has been asked uncountable times of the ID/Creo side and all we ever get in response is claims that they have already given it to us or more incomprehensible (Dawn Bertot type) gibberish.
​
Those of us on the science side know that there is no way they can ever tell us how to detect design in nature. The science side also knows far more (than any of the IDists) about the ID movement, all of the ID claims, and that there will never be a testable hypothesis ever put forth on this forum or anywhere else, so there will never be any actual scientific research performed or peer reviewed scientific papers published.
​
Disclaimer: Debates with ID nut-jobs should be for entertainment purposes only.
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 11-24-2010 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 9:32 PM Tanypteryx has replied
  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4407
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4

Normal Thread Display
Message 312 of 325 (593196)
11-24-2010 9:46 PM 		Reply to: Message 311 by subbie
11-24-2010 9:32 PM

Re: Applying The Scientific Method
subbie writes:
​
Addendum: And should only be engaged in by those who are well-versed in creo tactics and have outstanding public speaking and debate skills. I've seen several "debates" where the creo came out looking like a winner against a far more intelligent scientist who simply wasn't prepared for Gish Gallops, non sequitors, or any of their standard PRATTS.
​
Yep, I've seen a few go down in flames from Gish Gallops (which in my mind is just a bucket full of PRATTS).
​
I guess my point was that Bertot, et. al. will never give us what we ask for because they can't and they will never learn anything because they won't.
​
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
​
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 9:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024