Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

we used to have a poster called "ID man" that sent me to an ID forum (ISCID?) to discuss a point he could not refute, saying that they would demolish it.I tried it: new posters had to send their posts by e-mail, where they are judged for applicability.needless to say I never got a response to a post I was not allowed to submit.But then, they are interested in pursuing all sides of the question right?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

First, of "specified complexity" is inadequately and inconsistently defined. In true science a concept that is central to the thesis of the argument is carefully defined and delineated to assure congruent comprehension by others, in a manner that they can use it.Second, there is no method given for differentiation between naturally occuring complexity and this ill-defined concept of "specified" complexity because there is no way to make such a differentiation based on the useage. A properly defined concept and methodology would allow different levels of complexity to be evaluated and some {level\distinction\ratio} of "specified" to natural complexity to be assigned and then evaluated to see if the distinction is valid. This concept has not been defined in a manner to make this possible, so it is not testable.Third, and as I have noted before elsewhere: IC has been falsified as a concept of something that could not evolve (and was thus proof of outside assistance). An IC system has been observed evolving.http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.htmlWhat this means:One IC system has evolved naturally.
The concept that no IC system could evolve naturally is therefor falsified: it is invalidated, it has failed the test.Consider this a "test" of the scientific approach to this issue by ID proponents:
In true science falsified concepts are discarded,
Therefore IC should be discarded if ID is true science.IC has not been discarded, but is being touted just as much now as it was before being invalidated.Therefore ID is not true science, it does not use the scientific process.Perhaps you could show one ID site that acknowledges that IC is no longer a valid concept as evidence for ID.Furthermore, please not that invalidation of IC does not in and of itself invalidate the concept of ID, and that therefore IC is not a test of ID. This means that there still is no test for ID -- what is needed is a test that if result {A} happens then ID - and only ID - is correct, but if {A} does not happen then ID is invalid.Perhaps you could show one ID site that lists such a test.Not one of the other things listed under the "testability" FAQ in any way provides a methodology to differentiate exactly the same thing happening under evolution. This is not a test, it is masquerading as a test.ID has not met the minimum requirements of science to be a scientific theory, it does not have a falsifiable test, it is not science.This is not a matter of ridicule or opinion, this is the hard reality of science. The same hard reality that ashmore faces with his concept of tired light.The same hard reality that several scientific theories are facing right now, that have actual falsifiable tests, but where the test conditions have not occurred yet (quite a few in physics).Do the science, then get the recognition.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

yes. the question to IDists is: what is the degree of "specified complexity" in a human eye as compared to the degree of "specified complexity" in a salamander eye.if you cannot measure the difference the term is useless and has no meaning.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

one would also need to demonstrate by experiment and documentation of evidence that there are levels of "complexity" that cannot evolve.then you can test to see if that level has been exceeded.if it has then you check to make sure your original limit was correct and have the result duplicated by other researchers, including critics.that would be scientific.my personal take on this is that "specific complexity" is from only looking through the eyepiece of the kaleidoscope at the pretty picture, while the reality is that the jumbled bits are readily observable to the overall view. the complexity is in the eye of the beholder and not based on reality.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ah, so "complexity" is proportional to incredulity.without even getting to the errors in the calculations of probability and the post hoc ergo propter hoc of figuring out probability after something has happened when innumerable equally valid end results could have occured.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}