Does ID follow the scientific method?

And it must give accurate results or it is useless.So we need a set of rules for determining whether an object is designed or natural, and those rules must provide accurate results.We can't just use, "I know design when I see it!"

---

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

What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design.If you have no reliable way to distinguish between design and non-design you have nothing.So lay off the double-talk and tell us how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not.

---

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

From IntellligentDesign.org:

What is intelligent design?

​

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

​

Source

Design "theory" has been shown to be wrong in those four examples given. Spectacularly wrong in the case of Behe and irreducible complexity!So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design?You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question.

---

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

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.How do you evaluate those physical properties? In other words, how do you differentiate design from non-design?What is your method for doing this?

---

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

If you want to see the real "scientific" method behind ID, just look at the Discovery Institute--the leading proponent of ID. A while back a fundraising document leaked out and was posted on the internet. It gave away their whole sordid scheme.From the Wedge Strategy: Hmmmm. No mention of hypothesis testing, theory, or any of the other things science uses in it's method, eh?Sounds more like a religious and political strategy. And funny thing, the Discovery Institute hires mostly lawyers and pr flacks, and runs no laboratories at all.Hmmmm.Dawn, want to tell us about the "scientific method" again? I think you missed something.

---

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

Sorry I didn't get to your question earlier.How do archaeologists determine design vs. non-design?By lots of research. We study the context in which tools are found in several ways: we observe extant "primitive" societies and their tool-making practices; we examine archaeological sites and the tools found in them; and we examine sites that are known to be natural and see what we find there. The latter might be river beds or rock slides or roads where traffic breaks up rocks. And many of us learn to make stone tools and artifacts as well. Replicative studies are usually very informative!As part of his research, one of my professors in graduate school had a whole room filled with shelves, all of which were filled with "artifacts" found in streams and other natural deposits. He was able to study the differences between these and known tools and draw up some guidelines for differentiating between the two.In the case of flaked stone, one of the most important traits to look for is bifacial flaking. That is very common in stone tools and very rare in nature.Microscopic studies are also pretty useful, particularly use-wear studies. Regular use-wear is not found in nature, but is very common on certain types of stone tools.And there are always some items that you can't easily tell one way or another. Then analyses of the material and where it originated, or studies of proteins in the pores of the stone, or other types of tests may provide additional clues.In short, there are methods we can use to determine design from non-design. And we aren't afraid to talk about them.Added: One fun kind of use-wear has been seen on sandstone and other soft stones. If a reasonably tough brush, such as manzanita, grows near the rock the wind can cause movement of the branches. This can result in the branches creating generally linear lines "drawn" or "carved" into the sandstone. The smoking gun is to find a branch still carving one of the lines. Edited by Coyote, : addition

---

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