Why will no one answer this question, why will no one agree or disagree initially that the IDs methods are the exact same as the SM in the form of Observation, experimentation evaluation and experimentation
Well most of us disagree, IDs observation is if it looks desighned then it is no parameters are used for what actualy is desighned or not, so it is based on personal objectivity only. Experimentation evaluation i have yet to see any ID experiments and evaluations of this experiment that does not involve magic to fill the holes in id logic.
Here is the question in another form, if the other refuses to be ansewred. Are these the basic tenets of the SM, Yes or NO?
Yes they are but ID does not use them.
If we do, is that a scientific approach, Yes or No?
Yes please do it, please make an observation define what you see, why you think you see that, then desighn an experiment that would prove your claim, evaluate this experiment and then i will provide one that disproves your claim so we can dump ID please play by SM rules if it is disproven it goes in to the trashcan.
One can simply test the prediction that order and law, will occur if a given enough amount of time and tests are conducted, which makes it a "Logical consequence of the hypothesis being correct", as you suggest
Well yes until i provide an experiment whitch using the same starting conditions always produces a diferent resaoult.
Please demonstrate which part of my process is not science in action
All of it
Not a single post has attempted the answer to such a simple question, Why?
Almost all posts in this tread did in their own way.
there is nothing speculative about IDs approach and you are being dishonest by not answering the question
Give me an example of a theory made by id and i will point out your speculations.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
