Does ID follow the scientific method?

Great! Now that Dawn has finally claimed that ID has a methodology, she can no longer refuse to answer the simple, fundamental questions about such a methodology. She has to finally answer the question that she has been refusing to answer for so long: What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?Furthermore, she can no longer try to take refuge in philosophical double-talk, because she now claims that ID uses the scientific method. Therefore, this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method.

Yes, if they were actually trying to do science. But as their actions and the Wedge Document clearly show, the DI's agenda is not scientific, but rather political and social. Their opposition to evolution is for mistaken philosophical reasons (couching it as fighting materialism, though failing to understand the distinction between philosophical materialism, what they do oppose, and methodological materialism, which is what science practices out of necessity since science and the scientific method have no means to deal with the supernatural).Their political and social agenda requires them to build the broadest support they can in the general population. They will not alienate a sizable voting block, young-earth creationists, nor can they afford to. The truth does not matter, intellectual honesty does not matter, their agenda is all that matters. Just like with YECs.Though actually, I do seem to recall that the IDists do try to have it both ways. To the general public they will disassociate themselves from young-earth creationism, whereas to YECs they will play to that crowd. Same as the "creation-scientists" would do, disclaiming any connections to the Bible when speaking to the general public, but then being full-bore biblical when preaching to the choir. ID has separate origins from "creation science", but they have become the exact same kind of beast, practicing the exact same kinds of deceptions.So, back to their conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science does not include the supernatural because the scientific method cannot deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. ID wants science to deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. OK, so just how the frak is science supposed to do that? I had a thread, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), asking that very same question. 225 posts later, no answer -- admittedly, the last few were bumps for Dawn to join in with her own special knowledge, but no dice.Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?Dawn, both that question and my much more difficult question are fundamentally basic to incorporating ID into science. If you cannot answer those questions, then you have absolutely no case whatsoever. What is your answer?My prediction about this topic. Dawn will continue to refuse to answer these fundamentally basic questions, or else will use bullshit responses and claim that they are the answers. And she will do her utmost to obfuscate (AKA, "muddy the waters", "baffle us with her bullshit"). Nothing will come of this topic, except to expose Dawn for having absolutely no case at all. But then we all knew that already, didn't we?

I respectfully disagree. ID started much earlier, possibly with Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial (oh frak! amazon.com only has a newer edition, but I know that that book was out by 1981, because it was named in a Nova episode that included Johnson circa 1981/1982).However, everything else in your post was spot-on-the-mark.

Uh, excuse me, but your incoherent blatherings notwithstanding (considering even that much of what you posted are not even sentences).EG: Now just what the frak is that supposed to mean? It's not even a sentence! Others have asked you what your native language is. You have claimed to have had extensive US military experience, such that you are a retir(e). With all due respect, as a thirty-frakin'-three-year veteran facing forced retirement in one more year, how could anybody have survived in the US military with such abysmal communication skills that you exhibit? Unless one were Army -- inter-service rivalry etc fully intended.Dawn, think about this now. You have apparently engaged in purely verbal encounters before. The problem with purely verbal exchanges is that the ability of the listeners to properly process everything that they hear is severely limited. In purely verbal encounters, you can very easily overload them with your bullshit that they cannot cope with it.However, in a written format, you can formulate your position in a logical manner. You can show everybody the inexorible chain of logic that leads inexoribly to your conclusion. Assuming, of course, that you are able to exhibit that chain of logic ... .Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.This is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.