DB writes:
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 conclusions.
OK. The scientific method requires you to construct a hypothesis that can be tested.
DB writes:
This is not about hypothesis, but mechanichs and application of methods
But the hypothesis is part of the scientific method. How can you be following the scientific method if your methods are hypothesis-free?
DB writes:
Theories about what?
Nature. And how nature behaves.
DB writes:
The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theories
I think I see where your confusion lies. You are conflating theories and hypotheses.
If you want to present intelligent design as a hypothesis based on the observation that nature appears to be designed then fair enough. But the next step would be to construct this hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested and falsified. This is done by making falsifiable predictions which are the necessary logical consequences of your hypothesis being correct. Predictions which genuinely test your hypothesis (as opposed to generic or trivial conclusions that don't tell you anything not already known). This is the tricky part and the part you are missing.
But until you are able to construct and test ID in this manner it will never get off the ground as a theory by any scientific standard. The best you can say is that it is a rather speculative possibility (i.e. a hypothesis).
And given that the alternative explanation (i.e. evolution) has passed numerous such tests - ID is a hypothesis that nobody actually interested in finding the most evidentially supported theory is likely to pay much attention to.
But if IDists starts predicting and discovering new evidence as a direct consequence their hypothesis all that would have to change.
So my advice is to construct your ID hypothesis and start the process of discovery.........
™ Version 4.2
(1)