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.

From Wiki:

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]
  
• "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]
  
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]
  
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]
  
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]
  
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]
  
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]
  
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]
  
• "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[56]

​

Michael Behe - Wikipedia

I think this answers the question, "Does ID follow the scientific method?"The answer is clearly, "No!"

---

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

That's the problem--the answers to your questions are readily available in the quote I provided of the Dover decision. You just don't want to accept those answers.The Dover trial was conducted with experts on both sides, and it arrived at answers based on their testimony. You can claim that ID follows the scientific method all you want, but we already have expert testimony, under oath and with cross examination, along with a federal district judge's ruling, that clearly finds that ID is not science.And insults are neither necessary nor appropriate. They certainly don't advance your cause. Let's see the test! You have been asked by several posters to show the test and you keep ducking the question. But you don't have a test. Just like many IDers you are trying to appropriate the methods of science then pervert them to your own ends. ID is all about seeing design in everything no matter what the evidence actually shows. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. That's because ID is nothing but religion, and all your protests won't change that. The modern version of ID was "designed" specifically to get creationism back into the schools after the Edwards decision removed it (in the form of creation "science") from the schools.The book, Of Pandas and People is the smoking gun; the creationists who wrote that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar changing "creationists" to "design proponents"--without changing anything else! There is your proof: even creationists admit that the two are the same.

---

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

Perhaps that is a question for cosmologists, not "evolutionists."And it is off topic in this thread. The management does not like threads to drift that far off topic.Start a new topic if you have something to say about cosmology.

---

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

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief.To call it anything else is delusional, and trolling. And, in this thread, it is also off topic.This forum has strict rules about staying on topic. You should check them out before the moderators' patience wears thin.

---

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

In order to get you on topic, perhaps you should read my previous post: Message 133Complete nonsense.(Why don't you let scientists worry about these things? At least they are qualified. You seem to be just repeating the same catechism over and over.)

---

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

Only one; but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.)So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test.Here are some of the problems:Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective.There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you?When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data?When you can start to answer these questions, and literally hundreds of additional related questions, you may be able to come up with a suitable test.But first, you really should establish some relationship between "order" and "harmony" and the real world. At the moment those terms seem more suitable for a sophomore bull session well lubricated with adult beverages and unbridled ignorance. So how are you going to study the "pattern of logical and orderly progression?" Measure them? Study them in historical perspective, using fossils and radiometric dating?Seems like what you are describing is basic biology and paleontology, which is being practiced by thousands of scientists around the world. Their results fill floors in major university libraries.But I think what you are really doing is depicted in the following cartoon: See, there is that "step two" -- it doesn't bother you because you already know the answer and you have no need to go through all the steps that are customary in science. But that's why you don't have a test you can describe for us. That's why you don't have a method you can describe. That's why you keep coming up with these subjective and undefined terms, such as "order" and "harmony" that ultimately mean nothing.Fact is, you are peddlin' religion lite and we all know it. That's all that ID is, and ever will be. And that is why it has to be promulgated by folks such as yourself and sold to an already religious audience instead of working scientists and peer-reviewed journals.Real scientists won't touch ID with a ten foot cattle prod for the reasons outlined above, and many others.

---

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

EPIC FAIL!And the sad part is you can't even see why.Good night.

---

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

Maybe this is why it is so difficult for IDers to characterize their "science."There are dozens to hundreds of different major denominations of Christianity, and they all have major differences among themselves.It is not surprising that they can't agree on what ID should entail.And what makes this problem worse is they aren't really pursuing ID as a science. They don't have to come up with a working method, any real hypotheses, any tests that could be applied, or a cohesive theory. When pushed they make things up that sound like science, but not all of them make up the same stories. That's why Dawn and Buz don't have the same approach. And most of them have very little familiarity with science in the first place (when you already know all the answers you don't need to study science).That's why we can't get any decent explanation of ID and it's use of the scientific method.

---

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

Sorry, this is entirely wrong.Above I presented a summary of the findings of the Dover trial in which a federal judge determined that ID is religion, not science. That trial also showed why the conclusions Behe reached did not follow the scientific method. Further, it showed that IDers have to distort the definitions of science in order to fit ID into science and the scientific method.You simply cannot accept those findings.That's doesn't make them invalid.Face it, ID is religion lite and everyone knows it. I suspect even you know it but are unwilling to accept that fact.

---

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