In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.
But it is a failed science, since it repeatedly identifies as having been designed things which we know not to have been designed.
Whereas the successful science of archaelogy correctly identifies natural productions as not having been designed.
On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants.
Or alternatively: "On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant doesn't have a genome nor reproduce with variation. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants."
You notice how this is rubbish?
We know that organisms are not the same as manufacturing plants in every respect. In particular, we know that they have the capacity to evolve.
The notion that if two things are similar in some respect they are similar in some other respect is not science, nor logic, nor within the bounds of common sense, nor anything but a device for reaching false conclusions when you have no real arguments to back you up.
The fact that ID seeks to base itself on this childish error in logic proves beyond doubt that it is not science.
Your last post has already drawn a number of replies pointing out that you're just restating your initial positions again, ones that have already been discussed and rebutted.
If you'd like to discuss the science of design detection, which would mean Dembski and/or Gitt, then please proceed.
If you'd like to address the rebuttals about ID being no different than archeology and SETI, then please proceed.
If you'd like to address the rebuttals about biological structures being like manufacturing plants, then please proceed.
But if you're going to just repeat your initial positions then there's no need to post, for two reasons. First, you've already stated them several times. Second, it's contrary to the Forum Guidelines:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you resume the discussion we were having instead of attempting to reset things to square one? Thanks!
No, no one claimed that it is science. All it was supposed to do is to provide a speculation of explanation to the origins about which Evolution is totally silent. Call it science or whatever.
well then tell the morons trying to push it as science to stop it, because they think it is. by the way evolution isn't about origins its about life that already exists evolving, or did you not get the memo?
On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?
go read a book on evolution please, otherwise this is irrelevent to this thread