Does ID follow the scientific method?

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

You simply dont understand how reason works. My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities.My personal preference of design or yours of soley natural causes, is circumvented by logical deduction. That is, it is preceeded by those detemining factors, the conclusions do make them valid, if the method you employed produces enough evidence to warrent its acceptanceIf you disagree with the conlcusion of design from these logical steps you need to set out in logical form why the conclusions is invalid and acceptable as an answer to the origin of thingsThe IDM sets out a test and hypothesis that is detemined by the only means possible, deductive reasoning, which is ofcourse the basis of any scientific process Its counterfactual hypothesis must demonstrate it as invalid in the very same way.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At any point in your process you could have terminated your investigation, had you come accross the solution to the problem, without more involved stepsNeither of which would not have meant that either your or my process wa snot scientific in nature Can you explain why conclusion is invalid?Dawn Bertot

I have. I pointed out that ID starts with the unquestioned assumption that the bible is inerrant. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that part of the thread. (Others have also, but I'll leave their points to them.)

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

No, you have not supported your position and I have repeatedly shown you why, but I will repeat it yet again.As I pointed out in Message 77 and in Message 94 and in Message 128, the scientific method actually goes and observes, tests and replicates design processes to determine the different results between a designed object like a stone tool and a naturally occurring one.

quote:

---

An important point that I think needs to be stressed is that determining if something is designed involves observing and testing the methods and practices.

​

For example, in the case of stone tools scientists observe knapping practices, even perform knapping, to see exactly what are the characteristics of a hand made stone tool as opposed to a natural occurring rock or chip.

​

It is this step, actually observing how the designer created the artifact that is missing in the IDM.

---

Now yet again I ask as I asked in Message 132:

quote:

---

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

---

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Behe is one of the leading proponents of ID worldwide. You are not.Science does not have to address every scheme cooked up by some amateur with delusions of competence.But it is interesting that most of the proponents of ID seem to have very different ideas of what it does and how it does it.Perhaps you could all get together and agree on your definitions of terms, methods, types of evidence, hypotheses, and tests. Until you can agree among yourselves you are nothing but a rabble making a lot of noise.Get back to us when you have something, eh?

---

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

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.

They say confession is good for the soul. You're right, none of that did have anything to do with what is valid or logically acceptable.BTW, could I ask again what language you speak? Only if I were you I would stick to that.

Well, you finally said something that is both comprehensible (barely) and accurate. Well done.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Hi Dawn,See my Message 120 and Message 211 where I requested that you provide an example of ID following the scientific method. I'm suspending you for 4 days. See you after Thanksgiving. In your very first message after your suspension I want you to provide responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:

• An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.
  ​
• An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.
  ​
• An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.
  ​
• An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

If you post anything else I'll just suspend you again, but for a longer period.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

No I don't. Read me carefully. Note that word, "evidence." Where there is evidence there should be science. There are some IDSM scientists applying the SM who's chances of getting peered, studied in academia, researched by conventional science or aired in the public media are near nil. Edited by Buzsaw, : Change IDM to IDSM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

And there is Well whos fault is that creationism, and id got such a bad rep in science circles? O dont worry the media loves to air people who claim that bananas are desighned for the human hand by god, that we should see new life forming in penut butter if evolution where true, that evolution does not explain the origins of matter and energy so its not true .... Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Name them. Cite their work. That's what this thread is for.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi