ID testable hypothesis attempt from dillan

Good post Mr. Hambre. It summarizes the fact that like creationism, ID is merely a system of argumentation that exists merely to object to the theory of evolution rather than to formulate a hypothesis. The only difference is IDists tend to be a bit better versed in biology and tend not to get evolution and abiogenesis confused.Creationist: evolution is disproven because the rock in my garden did not suddenly turn into Richard SimmonsIDist: I cannot fathom how an eye evolved from a simple set of proteins to the complex organ found in Richard Simmons (no the other organ). So therefore, an intelligent force must be behind Richard Simmons.Syamsu: I don't see a difference between the two and comparison is meaningless. Everyone should just go away.

There is a huge difference if you don't take the IDers literally. Indeed, the implausability points to NEW or creative changes that must occur in the theory of the macro evolutionists.+++++++++Remember the line in the movie, "ET phone home?" I may digress.Here is where the discussion was for me on the living earth thread, last post . . . if the moon's gravity wave was very important on a pre cellular earth, stirring the waters and providing a changing "ocean" surface electrical conductivity pattern, this would provide a varying electrical required solution for nucleotides above in the ionosphere. This then provided for a huge array of nucleotide non functional patterns that then could evolved by convergence into functional patterns, and hence fed back more complexity.It helps that the early sun was less lumenous, but then that would mean that cosmic ray flux from space would have been more extreme depending on where the solar system was relative to the Milky Way's gravitational plane (see the Dane research). In any event, the earth had a metal core, and a powerful magnetic field, a moon stirring its oceans, and a cool sun, but warm enough so that the water could have all three phases in play. The size of the earth would be significant for the thickness of the atmosphere, such that there could be a particular dielectric value between conductive ocean and conductive ionosphere--so there would be particular parameters to life like ours evolving on another planet. The implausability isn't related to the evolutionary processes, because this kind of gaia start to complexity would be sure to produce huge number of nucleotides and sort them by functioning until the the better evolved functioning feed back still greater complexity to sort--the implausaiblity is related more to having the electrical conditions that would support the initial gaia state. Cosmic ray flux, for instance, depending on where you are in the Milky way, I can see would be an initial problem . . .

Hi Mike,
However this is incorrect. Implausibility does not point to creative events. It points to the limitations of understanding of the person or group of people at a given time. What is the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID? If it is just pesonal disbelief about how a process occurs then it is irrelevant to science. It is implausible that I as an upstate New Yorker would have met my wife in Munich but it happened and I do not require a teleological explanation for such a chance event.Though I think many IDers are closet creationists, that does not mean all are. You seem to have a different angle. However, you are still suggesting that the evidence for ID is the personal inability to comprehend an evolutionary process. I don't understand how my taxes are calculated by the German government but I am pretty sure there is absolutely no intelligence behind it Seriously, don't fall into the logical fallacy that even if the theory of evolution were shown to be false that it would in any way support creationism or ID.

I think we are on the same page, and perhaps I am not communicating well. The theory of evolution, or macro evolution, is constantly refined and improved. The suggestion that an occurrance is implausable given current understanding makes for welcoming a naturalistic solution. Nucleotide sorting, then protein sorting, by a pre cellular living earth, which is modulating chaotic climate inputs, offers such a naturalistic explaination. It is not a religious explaination, say, how you met your wife or fell in love with her, it is a naturalistic explaination.

If ID is true, it would be untestable. If God made something, how would you tell? All you could do is prove that nothing else is correct. No-one can prove that God didn't make everything we see and is right now laughing his Holy Spirit off at us for trying to understand how He did it. Since we can not, this conversation is comepletely rediculus, each trying to disprove eachothers arguements.
I await either someone's proof God didn't make everthing or that He did.

Which would move it outside the perview of science. However, the only reason that the term ID and it's associated concepts has been brought up is to try to make "creationism" sound scientific enough to get it into the classrooms around the separation of church and state.So your idea that ID is not testable would not be acceptable as a useful idea to either side of the argument. And as you note, this isn't really possible to do in a definitive way. I agree. If God is taken to be as most Christians take Him then no one can or is attempting to prove that he doesn't exist.However, what most of us are here for is to show that the idea of "scientific" creationism is false. This is from those people who aren't willing to stick with saying God did it but also saying how he did it. Depending on what it is they are stateing they are clearly wrong.E.g., the earth is old, the flood didn't happen, living things evolved to their present state are all the only reasonable conclusions to draw. You are entitled to believe that God choose to create the universe to unfold this way. If you wish to say that God fools us to make it look like these things are true but they aren't you are entitled to that belief. However, most theologians and Christians will become somewhat purple in the face disagreeing with what you are saying about a prankster, dishonest God. If you wish to say that these things are not true then you have to be prepared to defend your views if you wish them taken seriously. They have been shown here and other places to be indefensible.

---

Common sense isn't