Does ID follow the scientific method?

This thread begins with Message 15 --Admin.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Change titleEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

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 conclusionsDawn Bertot

Boards back up, will get back to it as quick as I canDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method Before you get to eager to see what a hypothsis of ID is, remember that Percy made it very clear that this thread is NOT about ID, due the the fact that it is a conclusion. What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive.Now I am happy to discuss at someother point the hypothesis of ID if Percy allows it.First off ID, like to thank Percy for allowing this thread, because he deemed it against his Jetter budgement, but thanks anywayAs indicated above there is a problem right off the bat, lets make sure that this distinctions stays clear, unless at someother point percy allows the discussionof conclusionsDawn Bertot

Again, no hypothesis, just a method to determine if ID is a possibility, derived from a scientific approachWe will be looking at IDs methods and SMs methodsNow, what is off limits I believe, is the conclusions of Macro-evolution and design itself, because both are conclusions, as ICANT was trying to demonstrate in the other threadDawn Bertot

Im not sure why he ciomes to this conlcusion, so I cant address that aspect this what I believe the IDM demonstrates as well. I sont know why he says that so I cannot adrress it Not exacally In this discuyssion it would be irrelevant whether order cannot be produced by NONINTP, since order is an indication of design to begin with Thats the point though, you cannot test a conclusion, the likes of which, where the evidence is not now available. In both methods we can only use our best judgement, with the best possible approaches, correctDawn BertotEdited by Admin, : Add missing quote codes.

Wrong, this is not the topic at present. I will demonstrate this down below, in response to another postDawn Bertot

I am not claiming or denying at present that ID is able to be derived from the SM. I am claiming that the IDM is the same as used by the SM. It follows the same logical steps to derive its tenets or conclusionsHowever, remember percy has made a clear distinction between the ID and the IDM Methods of application and usage. What criteria do you and we use to come to our conclusions, besides Observation, experimentation, evaluation, reproduction and prediction.IOWs, the IDer if you will, uses the same steps to come to the conclusions of its tenets as does evolution or Macro-evolutionThere is no difference This is not about hypothesis, but mechanichs and application of methods Theories about what?There are really only three classifications. The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theoriesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Conclusions about what, could you explainYou seem to be a very emotional character, simply try and stay focused on one point at a timeWhat general methods does the SM use that are not employed by the IDer, to come to thier conclusionsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Observation, experimentation, evaluation, reproduction and prediction, etcI assume that Mr Darwin observed things long before he went to the next step correct?His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct?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.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its sad but true that the scientific mind, actually makes for bad philosophy or logic. Determining something (and by that you mean prove) is not the same as demonstrating it logicallySadly you dont even recognize that your "conclusions" involve the same lack of ability to distinguish between events that actually happened and those that possibly or probably happenedSo like us (outside the scriptures) you are left with what can be demonstrated physically and logically"Lay off the double talk", thats funny. Your a funny guy CSo not seeing a thing designed does not mean that the evidence or logic will not allow it, given the fact that we use the self same methods to derive our conclusions, as do youBut it would help to know what conclusions you speaking aboutDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sure there is, the methods we both employ will be exacally the same correct? Hypos are derived from those general methods correct?Can you show me a general or specific principle you use that we dont to formulate your hypothesis?Can you you explain what your hypothesis are and what you conclusions are?This is why I say if both follow the same methods and both are scientific applications, both should be taught in the classroom, unless I am missing somethingLike most prejudices, everybody needs to move beyond ID or IDMs as being supernatural or religiousBecause now watch. General principles of observation and experimentation, do not require the supernatural or religion, only an examination of physical propertiesI dont need supernatural help or conclusions to determine something by a scientific method I employIs that you on the tractor at an earlier date?Dawn BertotDawn Bertot

I have no doubt that this is what IDists believe and it makes sense.It is however to involved for this thread. What is under discussion here is the basic method and mehodology of both positions, to see if they are the same and are science.Wer are not discussing conclusions as of yetWhy is that so hard for you to understand.It has been alleged in the following posts that I have no stated my position, this is wrong.I will state it again and see if perhaps you will attempt to answer itWhat besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not?Secondly if we use the same methods why is ours considered NOT sciencePerhaps you could attempt an answer at such basic questions. Ill wait your response I was not ducking anything my simple friend, it is not the subject at hand, because it is a conclusionWatch Ill demonstrateWhat is your rule of evidence for distinquishing something as being designed verses something that is simply a naturalistic cause? At what point will your answer be provable?We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusionsdesign is the conclusion of a scientific approach, not provable in the same way a view that only natural causes are the causethis is why I said earlier science minds make bad philosophers, logicians and debaters. Im sorry but that is true because you cannot distinguish between these two simple itemsDawn Bertot

Again its not a part of thier method, its part of thier conclusions from thier methodsGive me an example of you SM process you would employ that we would not, to determine some conclusion of events no longer available directly. What would that be and perhaps you could give an example of ours that is not Science, excluding conclusions, that is not scientific in applicationIll get you where you need to be C, in a logical fashion, just hang onDawn Bertot

Ill ignore this comment, but it does speak volumes about you personality. But that is beside the point so we wont discuss it here All you did here is restate the basics of the SM and the IDM, without demonstrating exacally why and how we dont follow the same rules of science in the beginning processSecondly once into the process, how do we lie about there being order and law, which is a process of scientific evalustion and atleast a clear indication of design, like anyother Conclusion drawn form the SMYou really should leave you demeaning asssertions at the stoop, unless you can provide evidence as to what we lie aboutYour goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approachthat should serve as no problem for such an intellectual as yourself, correct?Dawn Bertot