This is getting a bit ridiculous. I didn't think it would be this hard for people to recognize the scientific method after several of us have spelled out the steps pretty clearly, but, this far into this thread, not only has nobody been able to produce a legitimate example the follows the clear outline we've provided, but there is still at least one IDist/creationist who claims that nobody has been clear about what the scientific method actually is. I'm flabbergasted and a bit disappointed by this.
Since the IDists/creationists haven't been very successful, I've decided to provide an example of the IDM on my on. So, I googled. Yes, I googled. This is what I googled:
intelligent design scientific method .
Here is the first link that comes up with those search terms. It's an FAQ page on the IDEA Center website (I'd never even heard of the IDEA Center before this Google search): it's actually a pretty clever acronym ("Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness"). Here's a snippet:
quote:
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
They also provide a long answer, and then some tables with further examples, but you can go the link above and read that for yourselves.
Ignoring the vagueness of it, this could arguably count as following the scientific method. If an IDist had provided this example on this thread, I would have accepted that it meets the most basic requirements of the scientific method as I presented them in
Message 91. However, it falls short under closer scrutiny.
Here's my commentary, organized by step in the scientific method:
Observation: Intelligent agents produce complex, specified information (CSI).
I'm almost okay with calling this an observation. The only problem is that there is an implicit assumption in it that only intelligent agents produce CSI. This assumption should have been tested as a hypothesis in another round of the scientific method before it was included as an observation in this round of the scientific method. One caveat: if intelligent agents are meant to have designed everything, as in traditional creationism, then this assumption/hypothesis is untestable.
Hypothesis: If objects were designed, they will contain CSI.
This isn't really a hypothesis: it's just a restatement of the "observation." The hypothesis in this experiment is actually "X is designed." The statement, "X will contain CSI" is actually a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Experiment: ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC.
This is actually a good experiment, provided that the hypothesis that CSI only comes from intelligent design is first supported.
Conclusion: Design.
This conclusion rests entirely on the assumption that
only intelligent agents produce CSI. It is only valid if that assumption can be supported by experimentation using the scientific method. As it stands, this conclusion is just
affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy. Whatever standards one sets for science, logical fallacies surely cannot be seen as adhering to the scientific method.
-----
This is one example of the kind of thing I was referring to when I said, "I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum...": having put up an example of all four steps doesn't necessarily mean that you have followed the scientific method in its entirety.
In this example, it's important to note that where you start using the scientific method is not chosen arbitrarily. That is, you can't just cram assumptions into the "observations" step and then claim to be following the scientific method because you use all the steps from there out: you have to be consistent, and to test everything that needs to be tested.
But, with enough effort, I bet we could find at least one example of a true scientific method in use by IDists or creationists, but I suspect that the findings of it will be parochial and only indirectly relevant to ID. I await the efforts of IDists to demonstrate that I am incorrect.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
