Does ID follow the scientific method?

Welcome alschwin,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior.
Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host.Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. Your last two posts were exactly the same but to different posters. Address the argument presented not the personal comments.Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. Calling someone ignorant isn't addressing the argument or moving the discussion forward. Admin will take care of DB's behavior. Please do not emulate his style.Quote boxes make it easy to discern your comments from your opponents. Familiarize yourself with the functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum. Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.You will find helpful links in the purple box belowAgain, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Important Links

Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Proposed New Topics

Thread Reopen Requests 2

​

Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, Practice Makes Perfect, Style Guides for EvC, Posting Tips

​

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Edited by AdminPD, : Practice Makes Perfect

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Hi Dawn,Bluejay's request to provide examples of ID using various parts of the scientific method is identical to the requests I made in messages earlier in the thread. Illustrating how ID uses the scientific method is the very raison d'tre of this thread.I will not speculate as to why you have not been addressing the thread's topic, but I'm taking two actions:

1. I'm moving this thread to the Free For All forum.
   ​
2. I'm removing your posting privileges in the Proposed New Topics forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Is It Science? forum.

No, because not bringing the bible up is a standard part of the ID modus operandi. They play hide the ball and pretend it has nothing to do with the bible because they want to smuggle it into science classes in schools and they are at least clever enough to understand that if the bible is made explicit that they won't be able to do that.I'll give you a chance to be honest. Do you believe that the bible is inerrant or not? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. No, they are not, because they begin with the assumption that the bible is inerrant. You can keep asking me the question as long as you like and keep pretending I haven't answered it. I'll keep answering it unless and until you address my point.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I never disagreed that it was not a theory or a conclusion Mod, yet it is seperate from the Method of ID itself, until it reaches an unobservable conclusion, at which point it becomes a theory It matters greatly HOW we arrive at any conclusion, especially if we are going to call it science Any conclusion even those derived by the SM are unobservable when dealing with past events Your persuasion is misdireted and misguided. back there it was whether the IDM follows the SM in its approach. the reason no one will address the simple issue is that it casts a bad light on the SMs complicated approach Here is where you are missing the point. When I describe the basics of scientific investigation, ie, observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction, etc, you are not justified in assuming these are inferences. You need to demonstrate why they are only inferencesMod the physical evidence cannot be different inthis instance if we use the same rules and toolsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well thank you for admitting the very obvious. I believe you do this due to the fact that you are free from alot of the influence of most western scientistsBut by admitting this you have demonstrated that the IDM is actually science and that it follows the SM method. If not show what is different So by taking a simple microscope and observing the mircoganisms, operating in a harmonious, logical and orderly fashion, watching the organisms reproduce to form a designed and structured product that operates in a logical fashion in the natural world, that has both purpose and design, to function as it was designed, is not scientific methodology.An experiment that would demonstrate not PROVE the claim would be one that observes this very complex and involved detailed process, over and over and over again, to come to the very real conclusion, of the very real, probabilty of designNo one has demonstrated as of yet why the SM is any better at its practice than the IDM, in formulating OBVIOUS conclusions that are a natural part of EvolutionThey simply keep saying that ID is not science, it does not follow the SM and it (SM) is better, but no one will demonstrate whyperhaps you could demonstrate this point.Dawn Bertot

Observation: everything falls down when you drop it.
Evaluation: some one must push those things down
Experimentation: lets make a airoplane smooth and aerodinamic so nothing can grab it and make it go realy fast so they cannot catch it if the plane does not fall we prove that someone is willfuly pushing it down.
Conclusion our experiment worked and it proves that someone is wilfully holding the plane down when it goes fast it cannot hold it anymore do to its shape and it flies.
Prediction: all such shapes fly if they move fast enough.ID is about the same BS as what i have written above.

Hi, Dawn.I would like to do one thing.I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:

1. A real world example of IDM making observations of the natural world.
   ​
2. A real world example of IDM formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.
   ​
3. A real world example of IDM experimenting to test that hypothesis.
   ​
4. A real world example of IDM forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

*acknowledges Bluejay*

Ill give you a chance to be honest as well. Please demonstrate why any of the initial or complex examinations of the IDM, are not a scientific investigation methodAs of yet, except for Frako, no one has even attempted even a hint at that question. The reason they wont just say yes or No is because they know those things and the manner in which I investigate things has nothing to do with religion or GodIs it possible that all of this could be a designed product in the same way the Genesis planet was on Star Trek? Did any of that involve God or GodsIm happy to answer your question Yes, to the fact that I believe the Bible is the word of God. Now will you be honest in answering the question with a Yes or a NO, as to whether the IDM is and involves scientific principlesIf your answer is no then demonstrate why that is the case.Again my belief in God or gods has nothing to do with that point and you know itNow lets see if you will be honest for whatever audience may be watchingAlso explain why a belief in a deity requires me to conclude design, when all I need is complicated order and HarmonyThis should be interestingDawn Bertot

You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all.As I pointed out back in Message 77 "You have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects."And as I pointed out in Message 94 :

quote:

---

An important point that I think needs to be stressed is that determining if something is designed involves observing and testing the methods and practices.

​

For example, in the case of stone tools scientists observe knapping practices, even perform knapping, to see exactly what are the characteristics of a hand made stone tool as opposed to a natural occurring rock or chip.

​

It is this step, actually observing how the designer created the artifact that is missing in the IDM.

---

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Whoops you forgot to explain first why those descriptions you suggested are not scientific approaches in the first place, are they?So the IDM, passes the first hurdle of your presumption of a methodology correct Wrong what you have described above is simply a conclusion, the same as Macro-evolution and any of the other unseen and unwitnessed conclsusion derived by the SMWould it be unreasonable to assume or conclude that aliens planted a seed in the oceans here to form the life the way it isWould that conclusion be unreasonable?You have to do better than that above to demostrate that ID is BSYou havent even got startedDawn Bertot

Yes, it is possible.Now show us how you use the ID method to design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Wrong I have done this many times now, both here and in other threads. It uses a simple process to observe, test, measure evaluate and study detailed organisms both great and small.It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructureThis is a scientific observation and investigation of the natural world to come to the conclusion of obvious or even appearent design, now watch, not a bit different than any principle applied in the so-called SMHow is this not scientific and how is the conclusion unjustified logicallyMy guess is that all you can do is disagree and that is all you can doPlease explain how you would prove any conclusions concerning evolution, where the evidence is not now availablePlease expalain why any priciples of science we employ are any less or better to come to the conclusions you have arrived atBe back in a few hours, I especially want to respond to Ringo Stone
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

From Wiki:

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]
  
• "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]
  
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]
  
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]
  
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]
  
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]
  
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]
  
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]
  
• "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[56]

​

Michael Behe - Wikipedia

I think this answers the question, "Does ID follow the scientific method?"The answer is clearly, "No!"

---

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