Does ID follow the scientific method?

What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design.If you have no reliable way to distinguish between design and non-design you have nothing.So lay off the double-talk and tell us how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

emphasis by me. To compare your IDM with SM it is necessary to show the ID hypothesis which is in no way discussing ID simply what the comparison of ID is to the scientific method. With no hypothesis there is nothing to compare.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Not rule out, but question naturalistic mechanisms that are highly unlikely, or currently unexplained in certain areas of biology, mainly concerning origins of life. That they cannot be produced by naturalism could be Behe’s opinion, or any religious individual’s opinion, but the science of ID is justified in observing that it’s highly unlikely that they arose by only naturalism.

quote:

---

Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with the scientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.

---

How Occam's Razor Works | HowStuffWorksIf the scientific method has any relationship at all with Occam’s razor, then the ID studies that Behe proposed in Darwin’s Black Box (particularly as described at the end of Chapter 10) unquestionably follow the scientific method. Not entirely. Partially perhaps, but to no larger of an extent than it currently is in naturalistic scientific studies. Not everything in naturalistic biology is as cut and dried as the theory of relativity. In many instances it is implied that order cannot be studied scientifically if it happened by a supernatural cause, that means there is evidence for order arising from purposeless naturalistic processes. So in some instances, a process of elimination is currently used in practice of the scientific method.

Really? Then why are his most commonly referenced examples the bacterial flagellum and the mammalian immune system. I can see why creationssts and IDists in these discussions love to try and make everything about abiogenesis, but that isn't refelective of the frequently made claims about current irreducibly complex systems in modern organisms. You seem to have the word 'observing' confused with the word 'claiming'. IDists frequently claim that it is highly unlikely but the basis for this is invariably highly contentious and frequently entirely spurious probability calculations, Hoyle's often quoted tornado in a junkyard argument being a prime example. Once again simply making a claim does nothing, where is any positive ID evidence? Where is a predictive ID hypothesis? The best they have ever done is retrospectively claim the identification of functional sequences in DNA once considered non-coding 'Junk DNA' as an ID prediction, none of which research came from ID labs. Could you say that again in English? All you seem to be saying is that any example of order even if it has an apparent proximate natural cause might really be the product of a supernatural cause. All you seem to be doing is highlighting why ID and other pseudoscientific approaches which embrace the supernatural can never operate sceintifically and by their very nature violate Occam's razor. They posit undetectable, unstudyable and non-material actors which do not act in a consistent or predictable way. How can any such factor be incorporated into anything scientific?From their own efforts it seems that it can't and consequently IDists are left with a god of the gaps argument as their only card.TTFN,WK

Because I'm concerned about keeping this thread on topic I'd like to call attention to this question and point out that it is only on topic to the extent that it helps illustrate how the science of ID uses the scientific method, in this case to identify the principles for detecting design.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you want to claim that ID is able to be derived from the scientific method then we must first be abe to derive an ID hypothesis that is falsifiable.In order to do that I suspect we will first need objective criteria in place to determine whether or not something has been designed.I think this will be the first of numerous stumbling blocks. Methods of doing what exactly?Scientific methods involve constructing hypotheses and testing them in order to construct reliable theories. Yes?If we cannot construct a testable ID hypothesis then I don't see how we can take the next step of testing it. OK. But without a testable hypothesis I am not sure where it is you want to start from?

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

What is your first language?

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.

Not noticeably. So far as I've seen, the "IDM" goes like this:(1) Assume without any evidence that the Bible is the literal word of God.
(2) Lie.The scientific method is rather different. That's why following it leads to different conclusions.

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