Does ID follow the scientific method?

If we use Behe as an example then it becomes apparent that the IDM is different from the SM.Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Therefore, intelligent design had to be involved by process of elimination. (note: whether or not irreducibly complex systems can evolve has nothing to do with the actual method that ID is using)In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. For example, using the SM scientists did not arrive at the theory of relativity just because the only other explanation (Newtonian gravity) failed to explain observations such as the precession in Mercury's orbit. There needed to be positive evidence that the theory of relativity was correct, and that evidence was found in the form of bent starlight in warped spacetime.It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, but not used by scientists to construct the theory of relativity. It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.

When using the scientific method (SM) you question the theory that you are putting forward. If Behe is putting ID forward then he needs show how he questioned the mechanisms of ID. He never does that.Relativity was not supported by the collapse of Newtonian mechanics. Germ theory was not supported by pointing to the lack of evidence for evil spirits. Each of these was supported by testing the theory itself. The ID method (IDM) does not test ID. It claims to test everything else BUT ID. That is a significant depature from the SM. As has been pointed out, the conclusions made by Behe or others is secondary to the main argument here. In the IDM the ID claims are not directly tested as they would be in the SM. Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the fewest unevidenced assumptions is the one to go with. ID makes a ton of unevidence assumptions compared to naturalistic explanations. For evolution we have the OBSERVED mechanisms of evolution. No such mechanisms for ID have been put forward. We don't even have any evidence for the designer itself. All of it is assumed without any evidence to support it. Can you name one of these instances? Can you point to a generally accepted scientific theory that is supported solely by the falsification of competing theories?

Then describe for us an experiment that tests ID, and also describe how that experiment equally tests the null hypothesis. The SM itself requires you to make presuppositions AND THEN TEST THEM. They are called hypotheses. The SM also requires you to presuppose that your hypothesis is wrong and to describe the evidence that one would see if the hypothesis is wrong. This is called the null hypothesis.So how does one construct the hypothesis and null hypothesis in the IDM, and what types of experiments does one run to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis?

More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses?

A contention that you have thus far failed to support. You simply repeat over and over that they are the same without ever attempting to show that they are the same.I have shown that Behe's method of deductive reasoning diverges from the SM. Setting up false dichotomies and then supporting your theory by the collapse of another is not science, nor is it the SM.

You have yet to show how those basics are employed in the IDM. You claim they are there, but until you show how they are used you have no argument. Science is an actual activity, it is something you DO. So show us what you specifically do when using the IDM. What are the experiments, and what are the hypotheses that are being tested? What is the null hypothesis?

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.

Then your conclusions are not the product of the scientific method. Your hypothesis is that observed order is the product of intelligent design. The necessary null hypothesis is that the observed order is the product of unintelligent design. If the IDM is the same as the SM then the experiments should test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis equally. This is what all tests in the SM do.For example, a medication is hypothesized to reduce blood pressure. The null hypothesis is that the medication has nothing to do with the reduction in blood pressure seen in the research subjects. So how do you test both? Have two groups, one receiving the medication and another receiving a placebo. If there is a higher percentage of subjects with reduced blood pressure in the experimental group compared to the placebo gropu then the hypothesis is supported. If there are are more or the same number of subjects with lowered blood pressure in the placebo group compared to the experimental group then the null hypothesis is supported.That is how the SM works, testing both the hypothesis and null hypothesis at the same time. So how do IDM experiments test for the unintelligent production of order, the required null hypothesis?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You are using the very same argument Behe used, the very same argument that was found to be unscientific.Behe argued that irreducibly complex systems could not be formed from unintelligent processes, therefore it had to be an intelligent process.You are arguing that order could not be formed from an unintelligent processes, therefore it had to be an intelligent process.They are the same argument, and they are both unscientific.I can only conclude that the IDM differs greatly from the SM.

I did. Here is what you said:"There is, in fact, evidence for the designer. The problem is that it is not studied, researched or peer aired. Elite secularist conventional media, academia and METHODLOGIES allow no consideration for that possibility." [emphasis mine]"Secular" scientists use the scientific methodoloy. You are saying that this methodology does not allow for ID. There is a difference between evidence and facts. Facts which can be used to test a hypothesis are called evidence. So you need a testable hypothesis before you can claim to have evidence. Where is that testable hypothesis and the null hypothesis? Then you shouldn't have any problem telling us how they apply the SM, the experiments that they are running, and the hypotheses that they are testing. We keep asking for these things and you guys keep avoiding it.

The SM includes TESTABLE possibilities that are then TESTED. In ID, what are these testable possibilities and how are they tested?