Does ID follow the scientific method?

could you fellas please stick to logic and logical approaches to thingsThe Bible has nothing to do with your and my approaches to Nature, if I am using simple evaluation processes correct.Is the guy that is a Christian and a detective in the police force, wrong in his approach to a crime because he believes in the BiblePlease demonstrate why my observations of nature, my experiments, my evaluations and my predictions of what nature will reveal, are not scienceWhy wont anyone try and answer that questionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Actually that is not technically correct or logical. A hypothesis is a process by which you formulate an idea based on a mehtod of common sense, ie, simple observation initiallythe methods are not actually something you set and ponder, you simply employ your God given gift of reason and one method flows into anotherIt would be silly to assume that IDers use some strange method different to the SM or any other thinking personOurs is a scientific method, but most that are afraid of religious influence and references try and circumvent such an easily demonstratable fact.It amazes me that some judge or judges actually bought that argument and aprroach. Wow.The right gunslinger, clearly was not presentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Neither are the IDMs. Your free to demonstrate a difference in approaches if you wishMy simple contention for this thread is that there are no differences and both are sciencepeople have been duped, especially and surprisingly law makers, that the ID methology is religion or supernaturalNow watch this. By the very nature of the case it is neither. It is me or a scientist evaluating physical properties. What or how could that approach have anything to do with religionIts only secular fundamentalist evos that try and slip the conclusion of design in, in place of the approach the IDer uses, which serves as a smokescreen for a simple minded Judge to mistake one for the otherOne is a conclusion and the other is a method and that distinction is never made in those instancesIt would take me ten minutes to reverse his decisionDawn Bertot

Your failure here is one of a logical fallacy. You assume but have not demonstrated that IDMs are religious in nature, then you run with a false premise, believing you have started correctlyPlease demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your methodI have now set out several times what our method involves, yet had anyone to show why it is not science or how you employ something we dontDont confuse you conclusions with your methods The methodology is the same one you use to come to conclusions, the likes of which, where the direct evidence is not now availableWhat is your methodology for determining that a thing is a result of design or simply a product of soley a natural process?when the smoke clears and the dust settles, all that is is left is the SM of approach, the exact same one any thinking person uses on either side of the fenceIf I am wrong here is your chance to demonstrate why I am wrongDawn Bertot

This comment and your entire post indicates that you have no answer to my queriesIt is not FOR ME a question of religious preference or social nonsense, but one of pure logicPlease demonstrate why my conclusions of IDs methods do not have real scientific basisI would have to accept your above comment and the entire post as a baseless assertion, until you can demonstrate otherwiseYour statements are nothing short of comical, but they do not approach the commedy of Homer attempting to imitate 'Dial Up', with his voice and gestures. Now that was some funny stuffDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Could you simplify this Im not sure of what you are getting atDawn Bertot

Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic post but answer my question.If we both use the same methods as I have already descirbed several times now, why are they not science and what is there that you employ that we do not.Once again without the silliness and attitude pleaseDawn Bertot

Why will no one answer this question, why will no one agree or disagree initially that the IDs methods are the exact same as the SM in the form of Observation, experimentation evaluation and experimentationHere is the question in another form, if the other refuses to be ansewred. Are these the basic tenets of the SM, Yes or NO?Does the IDist seem to use the self same methods, Yes or NO?If we do, is that a scientific approach, Yes or No?One can simply test the prediction that order and law, will occur if a given enough amount of time and tests are conducted, which makes it a "Logical consequence of the hypothesis being correct", as you suggestPlease demonstrate which part of my process is not science in actionNot a single post has attempted the answer to such a simple question, Why?there is nothing speculative about IDs approach and you are being dishonest by not answering the questionDawn Bertot

Pardon me being insulting, but it is because your mind is simplistic and slighted, you dont understand the proper method of reasoning, or have the capacity of a rational thought process.I often compare such persons as yourself, to that person that pulls up behind you on the highway, when I am in the slow lane. While they clearly have the ability to pass, yet want to ride your bumper. it soon becomes obvious that they are unable to process what they are thinking and what they need to do it that situation, at the same time.It takes me slowing down even further to get the slow witted person to pass. Dewise, your slow wittedPercy writes:Actually it was was intelligence and survival specialist as a secondary carrier fieldDawn Bertot

Since I have not even brought the Bible up, it would follow that that does not apply to me, correct?More assertion with no answers to my simple questions. Are the basic tenets that we use the same as yours and are they science?If they are not scientific in approach all you need to do is explain why the are not a valid method of logical and science to begin withScience, Yes or No?Dawn Bertot

No they have tried to explain within the process why they believe it is not science. All they need to do initially, is explain why the basics are not a science approachAs I have stated before they are confusing conclusions with approachesIf I do an experiment that demonstrates and predicts, consistent order, or what even appears to be consistent and persistent order, then I have followed every step of the SMYou want to make our conclusions a part of your initial process, whic does not follow logicallyDawn Bertot

Ahhhh the slighted scientific mind, void of carrying things thier logical conclusion.It would be helpful if you would respond to what I said in that post concerning this question, instead of repeating itWe evaluate those physical properties the same as anyone and especially the SM. OB, eval, exper, validation, and predictionAre those scientific approaches or Not?We evaluate design from non-design by the order we gather from our initial scientific approachSince design is a conclusion, like any conclusion derived by the scientific method concerning macro-evolution it would follow that both are a scientific Method, unless you can demonstrate, what we have left out that you include, concerning conclusionsCan you do this, my bet is that you cannotInstead of repeating your questions, could you actually repond to some of the points I am presentingThats called debate, you knowDawn Bertot

Come on Modulous, you of all people I would expect to get these simple logical points. Design is Not a theory based on the idea that it is of an intelligence, at its outset. It is a product initially, of logical, scientific methodology, deducing, by observed order in reality and properties, harmony, consistency and orderThe conclusion of design, is not initially necessary to fromulate a logical observation and deduction, concerning such matters.Those are two different things and one leads to the conclusion. Your assuming it starts with a conclusion these are preconcieved ideas that you have formulated, based on a faulty approach of both science and reason.By the very nature of the case Modulous, how could I use a different approach than youself. the only way I could do this is to make no attempt to explain anything at all. In the absense of this failure, the only thing left is the scientific approach of rational thought process Well here is your big chance to demonstrate from what I have said, why that is not truethe truth of the matter is that you fellas have so clouded the simple term of science and a logical approach, that it is unrecongizable to the simple mind. They actually buy into your jargon and faulty logic There is ofcourse no way for you to demonstrate this logically, especially when we observe that actual physical evidence and deduce its conclusions logiacallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wow you really dont know how to distinquish between thier goals and my points do youC, I am not speaking for, by or through themThere appraoch is different than mineCould you please try and respond to my arguments. m not here to represent themHeck, I dont even know who these groups areThe last persons I ever heard of in this connection was Henry M Morrison and Bert Thompson, which is a member of the same faith as I amBut even Bert Thompsons approach is going to be different than that of Dr Thomas Warren's and others of the same affiliationI cant speak for these people you keep citing and i dont pretend to know what thier goals are or are notDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now take it real slow and pay close attention. By asking me this question you are doing two things. You are asking me in principle to show a test that proves the conclusion of design, even though you did not state it directly, that is what you are after.secondly, You have ignored the fact that my initial approach of observation, evaluation, experimentation and prediction are actually scientific in natureThere are no hypothesis of design, because design like Macro-evolution are conclusions, the likes of which the evidence is not available to witness it directlySo like Evolution, the only testable and falsifiable things are order and law (in my process)and Change and selection in evos process.So why do you call for a testable and falsifiable property of a conclusion in my process but not in yoursHence it follows logically that we follow the same method to produce the same results with the present evidence. One thing for your position and another for mineCan I demonstrate through a scientific approach that order, consistency and rules seem to be present? obviously yes?So if Percy would allow us to speak concerning conclusions I would be happy to do that very thing, but not in this threadDawn Bertot