quote:
Warren: I have already provided you with a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis and you refuse to recognize it.
You have provided a hypothesis about an enyzmes function that in no way has any bearing on testing ID! It is like doing random PCR and saying it is evidence for ID because you got a nice observable band even though it has nothing to do with gathering information on ID.
quote:
All that's necesssary to form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is to have a suspicion that something in nature may have been designed and then follow up this suspicion with an investigation.
That is a crock. You have a suspicion of ID involvment and have absolutely no way to distinguish your suspicion from refutation of your suspicion. Thus you do not have a falsifiable hypothesis merely by having a suspicion. Cytochrome b, did it evolve or was it designed? Evolution: I can compare cytb in any organism that has mitochondria that I want. I can find related sequences in organsisms that do not have mitochondria. I can gather evidence about its rate of change, its transmission, its population genetics etc. I can falsify that it evolved by showing that it is not heritable. ID...cytb was created by intelligence...supporting info? That it is there? Falsification...how?
quote:
If in the course of this investigation one uses teleological reasoning to make a prediction/hypothesis concerning some phenomena and this prediction/hypothesis could be proven false by new data then what you have here is a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis.
And what new data exaclty would be required since the old data already falsifies ID yet you don't accept it? What is the data then that falsifies ID?
quote:
This is the course of action Mike Gene followed that led to his making a prediction about degradosomal enolase function which could turn out to be false.
Then it is rather a pity that his prediction about the degradation pathway has nothing to do with a teleological hypothesis....what is teleological about the catalysis of a chemical reaction?
quote:
This example demonstrates a teleological approach CAN be used to guide lab research and, along the way, generate insight into the living world. I therefore agree with Mike Gene when he says:
this shows that ID adherents truly lack any grounding in scientific reasoning...you go into the "living world" with a suspicion that everything around you has been designed....end of story, no progress, no way to move further...or ID movement according to you is that enzyme X catalyzes reaction Y...behold ID! Because if enzyme X had catalyzed reaction Z then it clearly could not have been ID...
quote:
Thus, I would even go as far as to maintain the notion that ID is a "science stopper" or nothing more than a "god-of-the gaps" approach has been effectively refuted.
Nice quote...I would maintain that Mr. Gene should try a science-starter kit to learn how it actually works and how one formulates a hypothesis.