"Creation Science" experiments.

Aren't we going incrasingly off topic? Maybe you could give us the expiriment that is the subject of this thread instead of preaching? Unless you agree with us that creationism has nothing to do with science and is only for preaching of course. Edited by Son, : No reason given.

What we want from you is showing an experiment showing that if true would be explained by ID but not by Evolution. As others have pointed out, there are lots of scientific papers you can read to see how such experiment works and how scientists design those. We assumed that you thought ID was a science like any other, meaning that the rules are the same for ID than any other science.

Well, if ID is not science like we do now, why don't the ID guys make their own version of science. If their paradigm is superior to the actual science in regards to results, then you will easily overtake the current science the way science replaced the old methods. Otherwise, just present your experiment and we will be able to argue whether it's real science or not. Don't forget that in order for it to be a real experiment, the results must be able to differentiate between ID being wrong and ID being right. Meaning, you need which results from the experiment would invalidate ID, which would confirm it. You should have also noticed that scientists on this board presented their experiments and evidences multiple times even though they were feeling that creationnists either misrepresented the experiments, moved the goalposts or anything else. That's because the evidence you show is not for the sole benefit of the participants but is mainly directed toward the onlookers to convince them.

The scientific method has already been defined. If there are experiences that confirm ID, show them. If you believe the current science unfairly excludes ID, then we're back at the last message I posted for you. The thing is it depends on what you think. If you think ID is science, post experiments, otherwise, say that it isn't science.

Nice message, I want to add that there's a related thread that should interest Just Being Real :EvC Forum: Intelligent Design vs. Real ScienceAny new big theories in science is not outright accepted, their proponents have to work before getting there. They don't whine and stuffs saying they're being bullied by big bad science, thye work through the scientific method. Even Darwin had to go through it. I don't understand why ID doesn't just do that. You're supposed to show experiments and say why they work and stuffs, not insist on not showing it until you get a "fair hearing".