ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

It's actually pretty interesting to read your posts because they're like Fermi questions (questions that seemed impossible to answer because of lack of information, but could be estimated by order-of-magnitude calculations). By using subjective reasoning organized by a standard-defying grammatical style, you've made your points incredibly hard to understand even after approximating the correct structural syntax. However, with a little bit of hard work and some detailed analysis, I believe that I have translated most of your post into English, and will attempt to reply to that.
(This is just a fun way of saying that the more vague your point is, the more important it is to be grammatically correct, so in the future please spend more time on your grammar).At any rate, I've organized your reply, paragraph by paragraph, into a "p implies q" type post, so if I missed the boat it should be pretty easy to spot.

1. Scientists cannot prove that God exists, therefore it is accepted in the scientific community that God does not exist.
2. There is no scientific definition for God, therefore God's influence cannot be measured/explained.
3. With the appropriate definition of God, his influence can be explained. Based on my definition (not given), his influence is to give some things the power to act according to their beliefs.
4. Faith is action based on belief, with no doubt of the outcome. (no need for change here)
5. I have observed the entity that fits my definition of God, therefore he exists.
6. God cannot be proved or disproved to exist, therefore he might exist.
7. God might exist, therefore the scientific community should officially announce that he might exist, and God should be taught in classrooms.
And below is my retort. Enjoy!
1. The hypothesis is true, but the conclusion isn't. It cannot yet be shown empirically that God does or does not exist, so it should not be regarded as a scientific subject.
2. Though the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis, both statements are true.
3. I am unable to assess first statement without your definition. The brain allows people to act according to their beliefs, so if God (definition not given) is your brain, then I agree.
4. According to the popular definition of faith, it is an abstract concept (i.e. intangible) rather than an action, and absolute certainty is not implied.
5. Too easy...I'll let this one go.
6. Yes!
7. Er...good news! Even Richard Dawkins would assert that God might exist, and God is taught in classrooms. In fact, I took a class in college on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

An excellent point tesla. If God is real, and if there are supernatural causes behind life, the universe and everything (so to speak), then how would we be able to comprehend them? God could make the world appear however he wanted it to, we would be left with absolutely no way of having any understanding of anything he or she did; after all, how would we know that God, or some other supernatural agency had not been involved in whatever we are studying, only to erase all traces of his handiwork?
This is why science does not comment on supernatural causes. They are unknowable. They can always be invoked, in any situation, and they can never be disproved (as per your signature). Even if we suppose that the supernatural or divine is real, and that it has affected out world, we would still, by necessity, be forced to ignore such explanations, and work only with what can be known (or at least what appears to be knowable). The simple fact is that science has provided us with a highly sophisticated understanding of our universe and has provide us with countless improvements to our lives (including saving my life at least twice that I recall). Science doesn't need supernatural explanations, it is doing just fie without them.
ID is the ultimate in supernatural explanations. It supposes, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that some "unknown" entity has been tinkering with our universe. If there were material evidence for this claim, then fine; but there is none. The only reason why ID exists is because the Discovery Institute and others know that they won't be able to get get their religious hogwash into the US public school system. That is why ID exists, as a thin veil for creationism. Fortunately, it seems that the US courts are wise to this cheap trick.

---

Mutate and Survive

by looking at God scientifically, i have come to one conclusion : all things are natural, accept what we cannot comprehend. what we cannot comprehend, is not "supernatural, if true, but rather, natural, and beyond our comprehension.but knowing that, we can apply what we can comprehend to hopefully take what many consider "supernatural" and with understanding, know how and why of it, and understand its natural.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well done!i must commend you for your abilities to understand my lack of better communication!that being said: here is a link to what i have observed:http://EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity -->EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Nonsense. You've failed to discern between the mechanism and the description of the mechanism. When I said 'natural mechanism,' I didn't say, 'as prescribed by Newton,' did I? Newton didn't invent gravity, he discovered it. So, it isn't his logic that dictates how gravitic attraction works or how objects must move through space; it is the nature of the universe (or the will of God, if you want it that way), and Newton attempted to describe it with a mathematical model. The model is not binding on God, but it is quite descriptive of His will, isn't it?Therefore, I am not limiting God by saying he follows set patterns (laws, if you want to call them that). I am merely noting that, from my perspective, He seems to be following set patterns, and seems to have been following them for quite some time now. I am further asserting that I believe He will continue to do so, for he is "the same yesterday, to day (sic) and for ever (sic)." (Heb 13:8).This is why I insist that IDists produce an alternate mechanism for their model of the origin of the universe: it is the only way that they can actually disprove our model.Edited by Bluejay, : Addition

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

science studies reality. if God is reality, he should be observed.God in science does not stagnate it. it empowers it. because God at the top of science forces one to "keep digging".if things are chance, you observe the laws of chance. if it is not chance, but dictated by intelligence, then it must be pursued as such.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

see message 19, and observe the link then.God disproven? if he IS, why disprove him?why introduce God in theory, if you can by "law" ?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Tesla, I have already stated explicitly that I do not speak Teslaese. You're going to have to translate this into English for me. Furthermore, what I can understand from your post doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.I don't recall having written anything in that post about disproving God (But, I did change it while you were responding, because I accidentally hit "enter" before I was done proofreading. Forgive me if I've confused you). I also remember stating explicitly that I believe in God. Science does not attempt to study God, but to study what mechanisms He uses in His work. Therefore, produce a legitimate, testable mechanism by which the "Big Poof" model of Creation works, and I will vote to have you permitted in a science classroom.P.S. This is getting off topic. Please stick to what Minnemooseus wanted: evidence that would make ID into science.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

i don't believe he wants proof, i think he just wants to debate the value of adding based on lack of proof, and debate if ID has any place at all in science.(i could be wrong). I've shown proof, but no one wants to examine it.as far as the legitimacy of science, and the study of God, i feel they are related, since by my definition, all that is came from one source, the very body of God. which makes all things that are, relative to him. and all things that are, relative to each other, by its relation to him.God's abilities: if God wrote the laws, what other law could he delete or add? i cannot say with any honesty, what limits God may have.did you understand this teslanese?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So it has an 'n' in it, huh? I'll remember that next time.Actually, this was a bit more like the English that I know. I don't know what "adding based on lack of proof" means. However, I still think that this is a very good example of the same assumption you've made too many times in the past. You wrote "I believe..." and then you acted on that belief. Much of what you write in these forums (at least from what I've seen in my week here) is based on your belief system, and is not based in solid facts. (In fact, I remember you being censured for that multiple times). I've been through this thread three times now, from start to finish, and I can't make out anything from your posts but restatements of your belief system. It's still possible that I've missed something, though, so please draw my attention back to the proof that you provided.At the risk of deviating too far from the discussion topic, I will attempt to explain a little of how science is done. To start, you have to make an objective observation of the world. You cannot, you must not start from your personal belief system. Writing from your belief system is called "bias." In order to show genuine, legitimate evidence for something, you have to support it with something outside of your belief system. This is called "independent evidence" and makes your statements unbiased.If the only evidence you have hinges entirely on assumption of your belief system, there is no way for anyone else to verify your findings. Therefore, everything you say is simply biased speculation.As scientists, we try very hard to strip our research of biases. We aren't always successful (unfortunately), and most of us have our own opinions anyway (see the long series of papers on Homo floresiensis, the "hobbit," over the past two years for a good example). But, whenever personal opinions or belief systems (i.e. biases) creeps in, they have a tendency of making themselves bigger than the available evidence, and often blind us to the observations we could otherwise make if we were willing to admit that we might be wrong.What Minnemooseus is asking for is for that kind of evidence: the kind that doesn't require you to first espouse a particular interpretation of the Bible (of which there are many). He asks for evidence that could stand on its own, without having to be explained or interpreted for people to understand it.I apologize if I've been too rude to you in this or other threads, but I hope you can see now why we don't want to listen to you.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

nice and honest post. i like that.now understand me, my belief in God without doubt, did not happen until i had debated the laws of science that led to him.all roads lead to Rome. something cannot come from nothing.i debated them here time an again, and no one has shown anything other than the truth of the laws.now this was not warping laws to fit my fancy, it was observing laws, finding the outcome, and then noticing it matched perfectly to alot if not most to all of the "bible"now I'm sure you'll go " hm thats very interesting, but you've subconsciously yada yada yada".nope. didn't subconsciously do it, its true, anyone who examines them will find them true. and the truth is, at T=0 (the coordinates) you'll find: energy, first, singular, timeless, all the universe came from it, intelligence by necessity (no ,matter chaotic, or ordered energy), and singular creation=faith.so at T=0 :singular timeless energy that was before all things, and just "was", which was intelligent, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.now whats another name for that?T=0 is inevitable. science recognizes the coordinates, so why don't you start examining WHAT is at the coordinates. if truly nothing, nothing would come of it. so it was something. tell me what. define something for me that makes sense then.if I'm the fool, humble me.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Bluejay. Welcome to EvC. Perhaps the reason there aren't as many details to some ID hypotheses is that literalist Biblicalist ID models have less details to deal with. For example the Buzsaw Hypothesis has all of the animals and mankind being intelligently designed suddenly in one 24 hour period by an omniscient and omnipotent designer. In this most literalist Biblicalist Id creationists agree. There's just no need for details to such a model.When it comes to the cosmos that's where the Buzsaw Hypothesis parts with most Biblicalist ID creationists in that the B H is not YEC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Tesla, you're stil arguing your belief system, and now have told me how you came to this conclusion, but you still haven't produced the evidence. You've only assured me that this evidence exists.I think I'm officially done trying to argue with you, because you claim to know scientific things, but you just don't. You list off a bunch of big words (whose meaning I'm not convinced you know), and you keep saying T=0 (which, on the Celsius scale, is pretty cold) and "looking at God scientifically," and other stuff. But...THIS STUFF IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!!!If you want us to believe you, stop telling us that you have proof and put the proof in front of us!That's enough for me. On to other things.Buzsaw, thank you for being candid. Thank you, also, for understanding the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis."Let's work with the Buzsaw Hypothesis a little bit. In order to make a theory out of, you'll need to test it. How do you test it? If the Buzsaw Hypothesis is true, what could we predict about the kinds of evidence we'd see in the Earth, in terms of the fossil record, genetics, and other things? If it happened according to the Buzsaw Hypothesis, surely it would leave some sort of mark. Identify these marks.This, I think, is what Minnemooseus was looking for in the beginning of this thread.Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

T=0 is not science?is it not true coordinates by science laws?why should i beleive you? you have not proven me wrong, just keep saying that i am adding my beleifs. did you read my post?how can you find proof of God until you know what your looking for?i give you the definition by the laws of science, THEN do you know where to look.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I don't think it's directly so much as evidence. It's more a matter or methodology, which may or may not lead to evidence. Not that I think unambiguous evidence can be found (perhaps Granny Magda covers this well in message 17).I think Michael Behe's hypotheses are legitimate scientific efforts. Not that they've held up at all well to challenge by more conventional reasonings. Dembski's (sp?) mathematical mumbo jumbo, that's more shaky.I would like to see an honesty like Behe's be the standard of the ID movement. Be open about how your ID ideas fit into the bigger picture. Are they details in the theory of (biological) evolution (ToE)?Above all (personal bias perhaps), I think the ID movement should be open in conceding the multi-billion year ages of the Earth and universe. That would do very much to separate ID from the young Earth creationism (YEC) movement.As it currently is, the Discovery Institute is running ID like a political campaign. Be vague on how things fit into the big picture - Don't alienate your support base, which currently includes much of the YEC movement. In general, a lot of smoke and mirror obscuring what little substance they have.Or something like that.Moose