EvC Forum: Does ID follow the scientific method?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method?

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 4451

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 121 (591858)
11-16-2010 1:24 PM

Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design

Dawn Bertot in message 15 writes:

I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions

So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM.

I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Replies to this message:
	Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:45 PM		Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 4451

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 35 of 121 (591971)
11-17-2010 7:58 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
11-16-2010 10:45 PM

Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design

Dawn Bertot writes:

At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method

What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive.

OK then, let's get to it.

1. What is ID's methodology?

2. What is Science's methodology?

Please be specific.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
	Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:45 PM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-18-2010 2:20 AM		Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 4451

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 48 of 121 (592113)
11-18-2010 9:02 PM

Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-18-2010 2:20 AM

Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design

Dawn Bertot writes:

I assume that Mr Darwin observed things long before he went to the next step correct?

Well, he spent a lot of years thinking about his observations, trying to figure out what they meant. During those years he collected many more observations and cataloged everything meticulously.

His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct?

As others have pointed out presuppositions and the Scientific Method are not synonyms.

If I remember correctly Darwin's presupposition, when he start on his journey on the Beagle, was that the god of the Bible had created everything like it says in Genesis. The evidence he found did not confirm his presuppositions.

You see thats the problem. Most evolutionist, atleast the hard core ones, assume that thier position involves neither presuppositions or conclusions, but happily and logically they do.

Really? Could you give me some examples?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
	Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-18-2010 2:20 AM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 2:48 AM		Tanypteryx has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0