Does ID follow the scientific method?

If you want to claim that ID is able to be derived from the scientific method then we must first be abe to derive an ID hypothesis that is falsifiable.In order to do that I suspect we will first need objective criteria in place to determine whether or not something has been designed.I think this will be the first of numerous stumbling blocks. Methods of doing what exactly?Scientific methods involve constructing hypotheses and testing them in order to construct reliable theories. Yes?If we cannot construct a testable ID hypothesis then I don't see how we can take the next step of testing it. OK. But without a testable hypothesis I am not sure where it is you want to start from?

OK. The scientific method requires you to construct a hypothesis that can be tested. But the hypothesis is part of the scientific method. How can you be following the scientific method if your methods are hypothesis-free? Nature. And how nature behaves. I think I see where your confusion lies. You are conflating theories and hypotheses.If you want to present intelligent design as a hypothesis based on the observation that nature appears to be designed then fair enough. But the next step would be to construct this hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested and falsified. This is done by making falsifiable predictions which are the necessary logical consequences of your hypothesis being correct. Predictions which genuinely test your hypothesis (as opposed to generic or trivial conclusions that don't tell you anything not already known). This is the tricky part and the part you are missing.But until you are able to construct and test ID in this manner it will never get off the ground as a theory by any scientific standard. The best you can say is that it is a rather speculative possibility (i.e. a hypothesis).And given that the alternative explanation (i.e. evolution) has passed numerous such tests - ID is a hypothesis that nobody actually interested in finding the most evidentially supported theory is likely to pay much attention to.But if IDists starts predicting and discovering new evidence as a direct consequence their hypothesis all that would have to change.So my advice is to construct your ID hypothesis and start the process of discovery.........

Good simple post.I don't think that DB has got past step 1. As described far less succinctly than you in my last post to DB.

Hi DB. Let me try a change of emphahsis. Let's try a real world example and see how your stated methods compare with the scientific method as I am advocating it.REAL LIFE EXAMPLE
My computer won't power up. I press the 'On' button and absolutely nothing happens. I press it again. Zip, nada, nothing. My computer is but a lifeless lump of metal and plastic. I can hear the fridge humming so I know that there isn't a power cut going on. It occurs to me that I should check that the PC is actually plugged in at the wall socket. I heave the desk out of the way and take a look. It is plugged in. Damn. It is now looking likely that I will need some potentially expensive repairs to my computer but I won't give up just yet. I decide to make sure that the power cable itself is not the problem. I have a spare so I swap over the cables and try again. Still no signs of life. I start to prepare myself for the lengthy and expensive process of taking the PC to get repaired but decide to try one last thing. I unplug the computer from the wall socket and plug it into a different wall socket. Hey presto the PC revs up into life!! The beautiful sound of spinning hard disks is music to my ears. It appears that despite it being against all the odds the problem lies with the wall socket rather than the computer. I decide to double check this by plugging in a stereo to the potentially faulty wall socket and do indeed find that the radio is as lifeless as I would expect. I call an electrician.SCIENTIFIC METHOD - FORMAL ANALYSIS
Evidence: PC appears to have no power
Hypothesis 1: Power cut
Test: Audio check that another electrical appliance is still working
Result: Fridge is powered on
Verdict: Hypothesis 1 refuted. New hypothesis required.
Hypothesis 2: PC not plugged into power source
Test: Visual check
Result: Computer is plugged into power source
Verdict: Hypothesis 2 refuted. New hypothesis required.
Hypothesis 3: The power cable is faulty
Test: Replace power cable
Result: PC remains lifeless
Verdict: Hypothesis 3 refuted. New hypothesis required.
Hypothesis 4: Power socket is faulty
Test: Try different power socket
Result: PC powers up
Verdict: Hypothesis 4 verified
Prediction derived as a logical consequence of hypothesis 4: No electrical appliance plugged into the original wall socket should receive any power
Test: Plug stereo into the faulty wall socket
Result: Stereo fails to receive any power
Verdict Hypothesis 4 has been verified to the point where it can be reliably described as a tentative conclusion
Tentative conclusion: The wall socket is faulty and an electrician is needed.Obviously I did not consciously think through my computer problem in this formal "hypothesised" manner. The point is that we ALL use the scientific method ALL of the time without even thinking about it. Because in the absence of ALL of the evidence it is the only method of narrowing down the possibilities and reaching reliable (albeit tentative) conclusions.THE CHALLENGE
Can you show how you would use your ID methodology to solve the simple real life example above? ID methods are fundamentally different because there is no testing of hypotheses. No. ID methods are fundamentally different because there is no testing of hypotheses. See above example. The answer is - ID methods are fundamentally different because there is no testing of hypotheses. I look forward to your response to the example above.

That would not have worked in the case cited above. No they weren't.

I think we have pinpointed the fundamental difference between the scientific method and the ID method with your approach to this example.The ID method requires that you know the answer before you start or that you can effectively guess the answer to a given problem first time.These are not reliable methods DB. They will never be equal to the methods of science in terms of reliability of tested conclusions.How could they? You apparently solved the immediate computer problem with a lucky guess that would not have worked in my example or a million others. If your method is to rely on lucky guesses then I would suggest that it is a rather unreliable method of drawing conclusions with regard to more complex problems than switching on PCs. Actually no.Did you notice that even once I had resolved the computer problem I took additional steps to ensure that validity of the conclusion in question (by plugging an entirely different appliance into the failing socket)? Testing. Reliability. Accuracy of conclusion. This is what is missing from the ID method and the conclusions that are derived from it.

​

This is why conclusions borne of ID methods are woefully inferior to those borne of the scientific method.