Does ID follow the scientific method?

In this thread you have not as yet provided any observations, experiments, evaluations or predictions. Please provide at least one example of ID following the scientific method by describing the original hypothesis, the experimental framework, the observations, the analysis, the predictions, the validation of those predictions, and the theory resulting from generalizing what was learned.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I've been assuming he was in military intelligence. Apologies if that isn't funny to the military.--Percy

Correct, but IDists don't use simple evaluation processes. He is if he lets his belief dictate how he evaluates the evidence. An IDist warps observations of the real world to fit with preconceived ideas from the bible. That's why they are not science. In science, the observations come first, then conclusions are based on the observations. In ID, the conclusion comes first, then the evidence is stretched, twisted, torn and mutilated until it fits the conclusion. Several people have. You either don't like the answers or don't have the wit to understand them.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Why?You have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

Having spent 26 years in active & inactive military service, it offends me not. Even when I was in the military I thought of military intelligence as an oxymoron.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Design is 'naturalistic'. If we agree there is design in biology then we just need to identify the designer. Just about all scientists that have studied the subject have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to the designer as being natural selection and perhaps a few other more complex ideas.Intelligent Design's theory is that it is the product of 'an intelligence'. It so far has failed to provide a hypothesis for implementation (ie., no explanation for how the design was/is implemented). All we have is 'an intelligence did it'. Let's go back to the days of Paley, telling us about his watch and how it was made by a watchmaker with forethought and someone retorts:

quote:

---

A blind watchmaker did it!

---

Paley would look at such a person and say

quote:

---

Do you believe that an entity could exist that without any forethought managed to piece together a watch? What evidence is there for this counterintuitve creature? I know that humans have forethought {cites evidence} and that they can design tools {cites evidence} and that further they have fingers and other designed tools which can create watches {evidence} and they have a need/desire for watches {evidence} and that they have in fact created watches {evidence} previously.

---

And this is why the argument from design is not a scientific theory. The more advanced Intelligent Design argument is a response to a successful counter-theory. However, it is not a theory about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design theory is: "The theory of evolution cannot explain all of biology". Which I'm inclined to believe is true. However - its proponents then make the illogical leap that if evolution cannot explain all of biology and if evolution undermines the argument from design then the argument from design must be true if evolutionary biologists can be shown to have failed to explain (or even if the disagree in explanations) some small piece of the world in any way.Intelligent Design further falls foul of science by presenting examples of biology that evolution can't explain when in fact it can. Or by using hokey mathematics.So basically - incorrect facts, poor logic, nonsense maths, and lack of any positive evidence pretty much covers the important features of why Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method.ID might look at things, develop arguments and draw conclusions - but that doesn't mean it follows the scientific method.Let me remind you that this is all assuming that design exists. The crucial sticking point is the 'Intelligent' part. Drawing conclusions is a key part of the method. If we weren't talking about drawing conclusions then all you'd be trying to say is that both use empiricism. But science is a particular suite of methods of reasoning to infer conclusions from empirically derived evidence. Where ID falls down is in the reasoning and inferring conclusions part of things. We could start with:
Falsification {High risk. ID takes no risks, no discoverable evidence will be a problem, "The designer designed it that way for its own inscrutable reasons" will always serve as a get out clause for all possible observations}.
Parsimony {Postulates a being for which no evidence exists, except for the fact that ID supposes it does}Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

When using the scientific method (SM) you question the theory that you are putting forward. If Behe is putting ID forward then he needs show how he questioned the mechanisms of ID. He never does that.Relativity was not supported by the collapse of Newtonian mechanics. Germ theory was not supported by pointing to the lack of evidence for evil spirits. Each of these was supported by testing the theory itself. The ID method (IDM) does not test ID. It claims to test everything else BUT ID. That is a significant depature from the SM. As has been pointed out, the conclusions made by Behe or others is secondary to the main argument here. In the IDM the ID claims are not directly tested as they would be in the SM. Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the fewest unevidenced assumptions is the one to go with. ID makes a ton of unevidence assumptions compared to naturalistic explanations. For evolution we have the OBSERVED mechanisms of evolution. No such mechanisms for ID have been put forward. We don't even have any evidence for the designer itself. All of it is assumed without any evidence to support it. Can you name one of these instances? Can you point to a generally accepted scientific theory that is supported solely by the falsification of competing theories?

Then describe for us an experiment that tests ID, and also describe how that experiment equally tests the null hypothesis. The SM itself requires you to make presuppositions AND THEN TEST THEM. They are called hypotheses. The SM also requires you to presuppose that your hypothesis is wrong and to describe the evidence that one would see if the hypothesis is wrong. This is called the null hypothesis.So how does one construct the hypothesis and null hypothesis in the IDM, and what types of experiments does one run to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis?

Hi, Bluejay (I'm replying to myself). I have an idea or two to add here.There are situational clues that make intelligent design a plausible explanation in certain situations. Stone-flake objects (tools) are found in the spatio-temporal vicinity of human/hominid remains. In addition, humans/hominids are clearly capable of the hammering, flaking or carving motions that would produce the objects.These situational clues form the basic reasoning that leads to the "archaeological hypothesis of intelligent design." This means that they provide a reason to bring the intelligent design hypothesis to the table.From there, we can see how stone tools fit within the continuum of human technological development that archaeologists and historians have documented. This increases the plausibility of the intelligent design explanation.I still have a series of questions, though:Are there non-design processes that can shape rocks in similar ways to human manufacture?
If so, how do archaeologists decide which hypothesis (design or non-design) is better?
If not, are they basing their conclusion on the absence of alternatives? Is this scientific?
More importantly, do IDists do this too? What distinguishes what they do from what archaeologists do?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses?

A contention that you have thus far failed to support. You simply repeat over and over that they are the same without ever attempting to show that they are the same.I have shown that Behe's method of deductive reasoning diverges from the SM. Setting up false dichotomies and then supporting your theory by the collapse of another is not science, nor is it the SM.

You have yet to show how those basics are employed in the IDM. You claim they are there, but until you show how they are used you have no argument. Science is an actual activity, it is something you DO. So show us what you specifically do when using the IDM. What are the experiments, and what are the hypotheses that are being tested? What is the null hypothesis?

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.