NationStates Jolt Archive

Falsifying a prediction is quite different from demonstrating that a theory is wrong.

No, it isn't. If the prediction that the theory makes is wrong, then the theory itself is obviously wrong as well. Now, you may be able to fix this with a modification, or it may require throwing out the theory altogether, depending on how closely the prediction came from the proposed mechanism.

That it cannot falsify the existence of a designer is something that it has never attempted to do in the first place.

Every conclusion must be open to falsification. If it is not willing to try to falsify a designer, then the designer cannot be a part of its conclusion.

Perhaps you mean that science is only allowed to invoke explanations that have the potential to be tested by science.

That is what being tested would mean in this context.

If that is what you mean, then I have understood this a while ago, and you are right, I am not that dense. But in making such a claim, are you not forgetting the great deal of philosophy involved in naturalistic thinking that constructs hypotheses which, while theoretically having the potential to be tested by science (since it invokes explanations that are currently testable) are practically impossible to test.

Your statement makes no sense. You just said, "The explanations are currently testable, but the hypotheses based upon them are not testable."

Meanwhile, being impossible to test now is irrelevant. They are logically possible to test. The first proposition of the existence of an atom was practically impossible to test at the time, but it was not unscientific, as it was based upon empirical evidence and was logically testable.


The experiments that ID conducts can be performed by anyone, regardless of their assumption of the existence or non-existence of a designer.

There are no experiments to perform. Testing complexity does not logically lead to the conclusion, "It was designed." It is the logic that is broken here.

The philosophy of ID is different. There the designer is assumed, not tested (it can't be). It is the philosophy that helps a scientist design the experiment, and explain it's results.

That is exactly the problem! The IDer is making an assumption based purely in personal philosophy and completely untestable! The only backing an IDer has for his assumption is, "I think it is true." You can't base your entire experiment on an assumption you have no backing for and call it science. If I assumed that cold temperatures meant invisible purple fairies, I could look at the "steam" that comes out of a freezer when you open it and say, "Seems to me that it is the invisible purple fairies breathing." Given my original assumption, that would be perfectly logical. Of course, I have no backing for my original assumption - it is entirely unnecessary to measure what happens in cold temperatures - and thus my entire hypothesis and experiment are based on a flawed assumption.

Much like what we see in naturalistic thinking. The experiments can discover genes and find homology. But it is the philosophy that assumes naturalistic causes for the existence (and homology) in the gene. The philosophy means the scientist will look for ancestry by discovering homology.

Once again, you have the thinking backwards. Homology is the evidence that leads to the conclusion that ancestry exists. It has nothing to do with any assumption. It is a logical conclusion - and one that is falsifiable. The only assumption involved is that the genetic makeup of an organism is inherited - something that has been tested to the point that we can safely assume it.

Have you forgotten how the chaps of old performed their science, believing that they were studying the creation of God? Would you say that what they did was not science?

Personal belief != scientific study. Many of us believe that we are studying the creation of God. We are simply logical enough to know that this is not a scientific belief. What they did was science, yes. But they didn't base their experiments or their conclusions on the assumption that there is a God.

What it comes down to is that Intelligent Design is a fallacy of the wrong direction. The world was not created by Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design was created by the world. It would be like surveying a city, drawing a blueprint, and stating that the design of the city is based off your blueprint.

Wouldn't it be sensible to develop the argument for or against something new like ID by comparing it to something established like evolutionary theory? I think you have to distinguish between attacks on evolutionary theory and comparison. Keeping the topics together means that when someone does make a criticism, he has to be able to defend his own theory when the same logic used in his criticism is applied to his theory. That is what I have been doing in supporting ID. It wouldn't be necessary if people understood evolutionary theory. Because very often they don't, they criticise ID without realizing that their own favourite theory cannot withstand the same criticism.

ID must first stand up on its own as a theory.
Theory:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Once it acheieves this definition it can be compared to Evolution.
ID being valid and Evolution being valid are two seperate issues. The need not be related. Seriously.

Anyone esle hearing an echo????

BTW, I am not personally anti-evolutionist. I am grateful for the contribution this theory has made to science. But I do feel that many proponents of the theory go too far when they criticise ID. Such criticisms sometimes show that they have not understood science or evolutionary theory. I suppose though, discussions like this help people to understand what science can and can't do. In that sense, they are good and necessary, so long as it doesn't turn into ridicule and flaming. I'm all for discussions that promote understanding of science. I'm the first to admit that i've learned a few things from these threads. Science is indeed limited as you say. Science doesnt say the supernatural cant happen. But it IS limited to only dealing with natural causes, as explained to a tedious degree here. SOME proponents of evolution dont seem to know what they are talking about. True. Same goes for IDers. But usually mistakes made by evolution proponents will be quickly set straight by other people more knowledgable in the theory.

And you've fooled me if you arent really anti-evolution.

ID does not place itself in the position of determining if the designer is within nature or outside of it.
If the designer was natural you would be able to provide us with a hypothesis and evidence supporting the natural processes the designer used. If it is a natural designer then how did that designer come into being? Another designer? Evolution? flying spaghetti monsterism? People try to get around Abiogenesis by saying that life may have come from space. This is exactly the same problem. It merely shifts the issue to somewhere other than earth. The difference is abiogenesis still has good old testable hypotheses.

But I am a bit unsure about your proposal. Firstly, I am not an IDer, and am unfamiliar with their methods of studying information systems. Secondly, you want me to come up with an experimental plan on the spot, without much time to develop it and without a focus or an example from biology and then expect it to hold water.

Nothing in detail that great. Just a simple hypothesis and experiment to demonstrate ID. We arent asking for A full scientific reoprt, or a complete breakdown of the methodology that would be used....

Heres an example for a joke theory:

Hypothesis: Cats usually land on their feet because of mineral deposits in thier feet. These deposits cause higher density in the cats feet and hence make them fall faster in normal atmospheric conditions than the rest of the cats body.
Prediciton of hypothesis: Upon xray scan and/or upon dissection of cat mineral deposits should be evident in the cats feet.


If i can pull that out of my arse in the time it takes for my kettle to boil you should be able to come up with SOMETHING for ID.

So you are saying that your version of science is not allowed to include every cause in its explanations, that God may have been involved, but we can't mention him, because.......because......because that is bad science. Hmmmmm. Sorry, but I am not convinced.

You have got to show HOW it is bad science. Be careful. Anything you say is not allowed must also be applied to naturalistic evolution.

Including God in a scientific definition or explanation of something is bad for one main reason: it is lazy science. Whatever we cannot explain, we simply attribute to God. This eliminates the motivation to figure out how things work on a lower level. For example, if we were to wonder what light is, and then just say that God did it and think no more of it, we would never have thought about the photoelectric effect and whatnot. I realise that this particular example is oversimplified, but my point still stands. The moment we allow God into scientific definitions is the moment the progress of science halts.

*bump*

Apparently everyone is totally over Intelligent Design = Good thing
-or-
No one can provide the hypothesis and evidence needed = As expected.

Maybe your ground rules (vs. you know, actually being able to discuss the issue freely) turned people off. You had to bump it an awful lot to start the discussion...

Not at all. Just devise a not-too-complex problem, draw a hypothesis around it, and let's see if we can get to a falsifiable experiment by using the main ideas from ID.

Well, I'm not sure where this might go, but perhaps we can consider the case of embryology, involving prcesses such as cleavage, gastrulation, embryonic axis specification and cell fate determination. The IDer would probably see the development of an embryo so directed in order to fulfil an end purpose. In that sense, when he sees a particular characteristic in the development, he looks for the purpose of the characteristic. (Let's take the example where most vertebrate look vaguely like a tiny fish with a prominent head and long tail, having gill-like structures around the 'neck' region.) He hypothesises that every particular development occurs because of the end purpose. So he will study a particular characteristic of embryology in order to determine the purpose. Rather than seeing the fish-form as a product of evolving, he will see is as being placed there to fulfill a purpose. Thus, his research will focus on uncovering that purpose. When he finds the purpose of the characteristic, it will support his hypothesis. Alternatively, he may come to the conclusion that the characteristic was a result of evolution, since it obviously does not contribute to a purpose. In this way, his hypothesis is testable.

I understand that embryo development has been welcomed as some sort of breakthrough for the naturalistic scientists, since they feel that it provides some sort of demonstration of how macroevolution could occur (considering how different the various forms of embryology can develop so vastly different forms so quickly), particularly since the examples from microevolution clearly do not account for macroevolution.

But let me repeat myself (somewhat) in saying that from a design perspective, it is possible to regard development as an end-directed process. If organisms are designed, then in a sense their final form precedes their embryonic development. Rather than rolling freely down the hill, the developmental ball is attracted or pulled or directed to its final resting place (because of the design placed within it) which it could conceivabley reach by a variety of routes (consider that some species have alternative routes of development for their embryos which develop into the same final result, i.e., a single adulthood stage) unless it is prevented by obstacles along the way.

I hope this is clear (though brief) enough to provide some sort of basis for thinking like an IDer.

Hmm.. maybe this is the problem...

Most methods, reasoning and theories ID uses to analyse how the assumed designer made everything are valid. They can easily qualify as scientific. They are in fact used in other fields, like with the pyramid analyses mentioned earlier.

However, the methods, reasonings and theories ID uses to actually show there was a creator in the first place can not.

The distinction between these two is important.

Actually, you hit the nail right on the head. Before naturalistic science became popular, most scientists felt that God had something to do with science. Their science did not test this assumption. It didn't have to. They felt that God had made a world in which all was governed by the laws of nature, upheld by His power. Thus, they were able to explore their world, make predictions, falsify and test their predictions, etc. There were some (mostly non-science minded people) who tended to believe in superstition (e.g. a full moon is what makes people go crazy, particularly on Friday the 13th), rather than science. Or if they could not explain something, they tended to invoke superstition or simply God. But this was never (as far as I have read) the approach endorsed by the scientist in Darwin's day. They would seek to explain a repeatable observation in terms of the laws of nature that God made. However, the clash came when science tried to explain the origins of life and the diversity. But, as you may notice, this was stepping out of the realm of the repeatable experiments. The clash is totally over hypothesis about the past. And it was more of a philosophical clash than a scientific one. Same goes today.

Let me give an example. When I am working in the lab, and uncover some observation that I can't immediately explain, I don't assume that it was a miracle, but that it can be explained using natural laws, because that is the way that God made the world. I am capable of good science. My record thus far in the lab shows it. That does not make me a good scientist, just a normal one, except that I don't feel the need to rule out God when explaining the origins of life and complexity. As far as I can see, my philosphy clashes with that of my collegues, but the quality of the experiements is comparable.

In my case, I assume a God put life here. In their case, they (not all of them, just those that are strictly naturalistic) assume that naturalistic causes explain how life and diversity got here. Occasionally, I find someone who considers themself a theistic evolutionist. They think that God created the laws of nature, and then had nothing more to do with life getting here, but that the nature laws were enough. Thus God is a physicist, and his only interference with nature was the initial one. By doing this, they remove God from their study of science (biology). This means that they can honestly invoke only naturalistic causes in biology and yet hold onto their faith in God. Perhaps Dem is an example of this.

Yes.

For example, until Darwin came along, biology was not considered to be a science.

I don't agree. To suggest that Darwin ushered biology into science is a rather preposterous claim. If you like, you can try to support it.
What I reckon Dawin did, along with Huxley and Spencer, was to champion or catalyse the popularity of naturalism within biology. In his day, Huxley apparently said 'Shall biology alone remain out of harmony with her sister sciences?' I suppose he was referring to the field of Newtonian physics which had discovered some natural laws on which nature could be predicted. His point was that nature could be shown to be governed by natural laws. So he was trying to argue that biology should also recognise that natural laws brought about life and its diversity. However, he was destroying a strawman, IMO, since no scientist believed that nature was governed by miracles, just that there was a special creation (miracle) from which the laws of nature were derived.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
No, it isn't. If the prediction that the theory makes is wrong, then the theory itself is obviously wrong as well. Now, you may be able to fix this with a modification, or it may require throwing out the theory altogether, depending on how closely the prediction came from the proposed mechanism.
[QUOTE]

I think you have really taken my point out of context. I was saying that when a scientist wants to make a hypothesis, it must be testable. He tries to make it so that it is falsifyable. The hypothesis will obviously be based on the theory, and will most likely be used to modified the theory, regardless of the outcome of the experiment. In that sense, the whole theory may not be wrong, just a small part of it, or perhaps just incomplete.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Every conclusion must be open to falsification. If it is not willing to try to falsify a designer, then the designer cannot be a part of its conclusion.
[QUOTE]

You can never ever falsify the conclusion that natural causes are adequate to explain life and its diversity. That is why it belongs to the area of philosophy. It is based on reasoning, belief, logic, world view, etc. But it is not based on experiments and can never be proven wrong. Dem, its about time you saw that.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Your statement makes no sense. You just said, "The explanations are currently testable, but the hypotheses based upon them are not testable."
[QUOTE]

Perhaps that was a typo. I do that frequently. Rereading my post does leave me wondering what I meant. What I think I meant to say was that ID is capable of making testable hypotheses. However, the assumption of the existence of a designer (the explanation part) is not testable, just as the assumption that naturalistic causes explains how life got here are not testable, but are philosophical viewpoints.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Meanwhile, being impossible to test now is irrelevant. They are logically possible to test. The first proposition of the existence of an atom was practically impossible to test at the time, but it was not unscientific, as it was based upon empirical evidence and was logically testable.
[QUOTE]

So, how do you propose testing the theory that concludes that eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes? I'd like to see that. Something falsifyable, perhaps. Some details, please. The example of the atom that you gave above in not a part of the naturalisitc explanation and do not answer my question.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
There are no experiments to perform. Testing complexity does not logically lead to the conclusion, "It was designed." It is the logic that is broken here.
[QUOTE]

IDers are not usually focussed on experiments that prove something was designed, just as most of science today is not focussed on proving that natural causes formed life. ID interprets experimental data on the basis of a designer, just as naturalism will interpret the experimental data on the basis of natural causes only. The breakdown in logic, as you put it, applies to them both.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
That is exactly the problem! The IDer is making an assumption based purely in personal philosophy and completely untestable! The only backing an IDer has for his assumption is, "I think it is true." You can't base your entire experiment on an assumption you have no backing for and call it science. If I assumed that cold temperatures meant invisible purple fairies, I could look at the "steam" that comes out of a freezer when you open it and say, "Seems to me that it is the invisible purple fairies breathing." Given my original assumption, that would be perfectly logical. Of course, I have no backing for my original assumption - it is entirely unnecessary to measure what happens in cold temperatures - and thus my entire hypothesis and experiment are based on a flawed assumption.
[QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, then, you have to criticise Darwin, who wrote: ''Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.'' If you read carefully, you will find the word 'believe'. His was certainly a personaly philosophy, without evidence, for he also wrote at one stage, ''When we descend to the details, we can prove that no one species has changed, nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.''

Neither did Darwin believe his idea of naturalism was testable. What he did point to was selection being the means of evolution. In this he highlighted an important cause that is testable. But by no means does that confirm his idea of naturalism, since it is also consistent with design theory.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Once again, you have the thinking backwards. Homology is the evidence that leads to the conclusion that ancestry exists. It has nothing to do with any assumption. It is a logical conclusion - and one that is falsifiable. The only assumption involved is that the genetic makeup of an organism is inherited - something that has been tested to the point that we can safely assume it.
[QUOTE]

No, you are quite wrong. Homology (as it stands defined in science) is testable and falsifyable, but the conclusion that humans were descended from some apelike creature is not testable. However, many experiments today are interpreted according to the theory that this did in fact occur. None of these experiments will ever falsify the theory. They will only try to provide evidence that fits with the conclusion. It is a logical conclusion, if you assume that life was brought about by natural laws. It is thus based on an assumption.
Furthermore, there remain many cases of homology that are concluded as NOT due to ancestry.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]
Personal belief != scientific study. Many of us believe that we are studying the creation of God. We are simply logical enough to know that this is not a scientific belief. What they did was science, yes. But they didn't base their experiments or their conclusions on the assumption that there is a God.
[QUOTE]

As far as I can see, anyone can do good science, regardless of their philosophy, so long as they follow the principles of science, and do not try in used hypotheses that are untestable. That is why both naturalistic science and ID is capable of doing science. The philosophy on which each is based will ensure that they approach their science from rather different angles.

I view my science as being based on the laws that God created, and I see the diversity of life as being designed for a purpose. My personal belief will impact my scientific study, but there is no reason that I can see why my science is therefore bad.

One of Darwin's favourite arguments was that only the naturalistic view point can be considered science. And yet it seems as though he was never able to demonstrate why, except to demolish the strawman that science cannot operate alongside miracles. For me, my science easily incorporates creation, and demonstrates that, in this respect, Darwin got it wrong.

ID must first stand up on its own as a theory.
Theory:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Once it acheieves this definition it can be compared to Evolution.
ID being valid and Evolution being valid are two seperate issues. The need not be related. Seriously.


I think you have it firmly lodged in your mind that ID is all about designing experiments to demonstrate the existence of a designer. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!! It follows normal scientific proceedures. See my example on embryology. It will only assume that designs came from a designer, just like naturalism assumes that design comes from naturalistic causes.

That just reinforces my view of the benefits of keeping the discussion about ID and evolutionary theory in the same thread. One can learn quite a lot by the comparison.


I'm all for discussions that promote understanding of science. I'm the first to admit that i've learned a few things from these threads. Science is indeed limited as you say. Science doesnt say the supernatural cant happen. But it IS limited to only dealing with natural causes, as explained to a tedious degree here. SOME proponents of evolution dont seem to know what they are talking about. True. Same goes for IDers. But usually mistakes made by evolution proponents will be quickly set straight by other people more knowledgable in the theory.


And to your credit, you have managed (perhaps only just at times) to keep the debate civilised. That is encouraging. (I am not trying to convert you to ID, but I will be happy if you can see things from my point of view.)

The experiments within science are only concerned with natural causes. This is a point that I think we have agreed on a long time ago. Whether science is allowed to rule out a designer is a separate issue. It does not follow that since science can only measure natural causes, it must only assume natural causes, any more than a policeman investigating a death should assume the presence or the absence of a perpetrator. (Where my example breaks down is where the policeman focuses on establishing if there was a perpetrator, while neither ID or evolutionary theory are in a position to establish the presence or absensce of God. Each interprets the evidence based on their assumption.)


And you've fooled me if you arent really anti-evolution.


By that statement, I meant that I accept evolution where it has been observed and documented and explained in detailed manner. What I am yet to accept is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. The extrapolation is not based on observation, but on the a philosophical position which assumes that naturalistic causes explains the origin and diversity of life.


If the designer was natural you would be able to provide us with a hypothesis and evidence supporting the natural processes the designer used. If it is a natural designer then how did that designer come into being? Another designer? Evolution? flying spaghetti monsterism? People try to get around Abiogenesis by saying that life may have come from space. This is exactly the same problem. It merely shifts the issue to somewhere other than earth. The difference is abiogenesis still has good old testable hypotheses.


I think you need to modify your understanding on ID, as mentioned above. ID is not concerned with devising experiments to demonstrate a designer. Thus it will not be occupied with the origin of the designer. That is a philosophical or theological debate. Abiogenesis does have experiements and hypotheses that are testable, but the philosophy on which it is based is not testable.

I had to smile a little when you suggested that ID has the problem of life coming from space, as if it was an explanation from ID. Mostly, it is something that the naturalistic folk have invoked in order to explain how abiogenesis could have happened on e.g., a different planet (different conditions, more favourable to the formation of life than found on this planet) and then travelled to this planet. Don't accuse ID of making up that one.


Nothing in detail that great. Just a simple hypothesis and experiment to demonstrate ID. We arent asking for A full scientific reoprt, or a complete breakdown of the methodology that would be used....


See my post on embryology.

I think you have it firmly lodged in your mind that ID is all about designing experiments to demonstrate the existence of a designer. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!! It follows normal scientific proceedures. See my example on embryology. It will only assume that designs came from a designer, just like naturalism assumes that design comes from naturalistic causes.

I understand that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself. This approach is "Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!" ID should be creating experiments to test for a designer. ID is totally reliant on a designer to work. It introduces the factor of a designer into its explanations, and therefore it must produce hypotheses and experiments to verify this new factor. Otherwise it is baseless speculation ---> philosophy---> Not science.

That just reinforces my view of the benefits of keeping the discussion about ID and evolutionary theory in the same thread. One can learn quite a lot by the comparison.

And to your credit, you have managed (perhaps only just at times) to keep the debate civilised. That is encouraging. (I am not trying to convert you to ID, but I will be happy if you can see things from my point of view.)

I'm not denying value in ID/Evolution debates. However this isnt the place for them. I personally feel you are squandering an oppurtunity. This was a chance for ID proponents, such as yourself, to stand up and give us the background, works, evidence, hypotheses, and validity of ID in its own right. So far (in generalised and over-simplified terms) you have said "Look at these places evolution cant explain fully. ID fits much better. Just dont ask us to confirm that there really is a designer" and "Nature looks complex. Therefore it looks designed. Therefore it must be designed". If you just want to debate ID alongside evolution then please create, or find, another thread. If you want to give a solid case for ID as an INDEPENDENT science, then here is the place to do it. As someone who has only ever seen evolution put forward a convincing independent argument i am genuinely interested in seeing if ID can do anything similar. (note: This is just my personal opinion, and as such is NOT an invitation to comment on evolutions arguments, please.)

The experiments within science are only concerned with natural causes. This is a point that I think we have agreed on a long time ago. Whether science is allowed to rule out a designer is a separate issue. It does not follow that since science can only measure natural causes, it must only assume natural causes, any more than a policeman investigating a death should assume the presence or the absence of a perpetrator. (Where my example breaks down is where the policeman focuses on establishing if there was a perpetrator, while neither ID or evolutionary theory are in a position to establish the presence or absensce of God. Each interprets the evidence based on their assumption.)

Things we agree on:
1) The experiments of science can only be concerned with natural causes
2) Science cannot rule out the supernatural

Things i dont agree with you on:
1) Science should be able to invoke the supernatural in its explantions

Why i dont agree with you:
If you add in a factor you have to be able to create experiments to verify that factor. ID cannot do this. To add in a creator/designer is unscientific. This is a definate limitation of science, but one we must live with if we are to continue investigating nature and explaining them through what we can observe, rationalise, and verify.

I view ID as i view God. I personally dont believe in either. However, due to their very nature, they may well both be entirely true but we have no way of definatively knowing. This is why even though ID might be correct it cannot be science. It cannot be naturalistically explained or observed.

If our difference in opinion on what science is is that vastly different then we really have reached a rather meaningless situation.

By that statement, I meant that I accept evolution where it has been observed and documented and explained in detailed manner. What I am yet to accept is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. The extrapolation is not based on observation, but on the a philosophical position which assumes that naturalistic causes explains the origin and diversity of life.

The extrapolation works on the fact that macroevolution predicts certain things should be seen in fossil records, genetics, etc. These things are seen. We then invoke things like selection and random mutation to account for this. From there various studies have been done and examples shown to verify these causes. The rapid speciation of things such as the lake victoria chiclids into a vast array of sizes, colours, and subtle yet clear morphology changes, etc from a single group of ancestors within such a short space of time gives evidence for this.

I can quite happily accept that you havent seen enough detail filled in to accept macroevolution. But, as one of my esteemed NS colleagues bought up, science deals with filling in the gaps in its own understanding. I refer to the example of "fluffy the destroyer of worlds" (hope i got the name right) and the pixelated picture. As we keep getting higher resolution our understanding and conclusions become more accurate and validated.

The scientific community already has a great deal of evidence to suggest macroevolution and how microevolution produces macroevolution on much greater time scales then we can observe first hand in the space of our lifetimes. You've asked us what we would accpet as convincing evidence for ID. What would be convincing evidence for you for macroevolution?

I think you need to modify your understanding on ID, as mentioned above. ID is not concerned with devising experiments to demonstrate a designer. Thus it will not be occupied with the origin of the designer. That is a philosophical or theological debate. Abiogenesis does have experiements and hypotheses that are testable, but the philosophy on which it is based is not testable.

I dont think i have to modify my understanding of it at all. I think ID just has to live by the rules of science and verify the factors it uses to explain itself. The origin, or nature, of the designer is unimportant. What is important is that ID is totally reliant on the designer existing. So it must produce experiments that can give evidence to support that there is one.

Since you're fond of comparisons...
Evolution.
- God zaps down a complete living cell in the pre-cambrian.... No worries. Cell can then evolve.
- God doesnt exist so we have to rely on naturalistic causes... (take abiogenesis as read). first forms of self replicating 'life' then evolve.

ID
-God, over time, zaps down every species ready made ... cool but unprovable
-God zaps down x number of species and guides their evolution into the species he wanted to finish with. cant prove it happend and evolution is still a factor, but fine
- Aliens zap down pre-made species. massive crew of aliens seeding the planet remove all trace evidence of their intrusions. Impressive. unprovable. and close to impossible. And how did those hyper-intelligent, super-powerful aliens develop?
- The designer that ID doesnt want to prove exists doesnt actually exist.... organisms souls (which we also cant prove) design their own bodies and zap themselves down???

I had to smile a little when you suggested that ID has the problem of life coming from space, as if it was an explanation from ID. Mostly, it is something that the naturalistic folk have invoked in order to explain how abiogenesis could have happened on e.g., a different planet (different conditions, more favourable to the formation of life than found on this planet) and then travelled to this planet. Don't accuse ID of making up that one.

Sorry obviously didnt make myself clear.
In this thread you said that the designer need not be supernatural. On another thread an IDer (i think it was you) said that it could have been highly advanced extraterrestrials. If this were the case it simply moves the problem to another place as you have to explain how those aliens came to be. And we should be able to see clear evidence of the existance of a natural creator if that were the case.

I was agreeing with you in that if someone tries to get around abiogenesis by saying "life could have started elsewhere in space and travelled here" it simply moves the problem elsewhere without solving it.

I can accuse ID of using that one as you yourself said that the designer need not be supernatural. And since i dont see any omnipotent, but somehow not god-like, beings wandering around earth i'll assume they are these extraterrestrial designers.

See my post on embryology.

Finding a characteristic that does not have a purpose falsifies the experiment? Shouldnt that hold for final-stage organisms not just embryology? The appendix (that, if infected, can become a mortal threat), or vestigal limbs on whales and snakes, et cetera. If design makes it an end directed process why do the end products contain so many flaws and usless bits and pieces?

If it is such an end directed process then shouldn't all life be more or less static? maybe a little microevolution back and forth like the beaks on darwins finches, but not the rapid mutations seen in viruses such as HIV. Or the rapid changes in morphology of the chichlids. Or throwbacks like babies born with tails containing muscle tissue, nervous tissue etc. Or speciation such as the london mosquitoes. Or evolutionary dead ends such as the thylacine, the panda (just give it time), neanderthal man, dodo, mammoths, sabre-tooth cats, proto-horse species. Seems strange to design animals with the expressed purpose of being outcompeted. At least your embyology post was on topic. Thank you.

Hawkintom']Maybe your ground rules (vs. you know, actually being able to discuss the issue freely) turned people off. You had to bump it an awful lot to start the discussion...

Nothing in the ground rules kept people from discussing the issue (a basis upon which to call ID science). The problem is that no one can come up with any such basis. They have no "support" for ID outside of, "Well, evolution says......" or, "Well, I don't think evolution...."

This does not, of course, make the idea itself any more scientific. In fact, it makes it less so, as the the idea cannot stand alone outside of comparison with an actual theory.

Actually, you hit the nail right on the head. Before naturalistic science became popular, most scientists felt that God had something to do with science.

No, they felt that God had something to do with creation and with the way things work. This is not the same as thinking that God has something to do with science. The types of people who believed that God had something to do with science were the ones coming up with equations so complicated to "prove" that the sun revolved around the Earth that it was laughable.

Their science did not test this assumption. It didn't have to. They felt that God had made a world in which all was governed by the laws of nature, upheld by His power.

Oh look! You just described most scientists of today!

Let me give an example. When I am working in the lab, and uncover some observation that I can't immediately explain, I don't assume that it was a miracle, but that it can be explained using natural laws, because that is the way that God made the world.

Ok, you've just described evolutionary theory from the viewpoint of a scientist who also happens to be a theist. So good, so far.

I am capable of good science. My record thus far in the lab shows it. That does not make me a good scientist, just a normal one, except that I don't feel the need to rule out God when explaining the origins of life and complexity.

I certainly hope not. Ruling out God, as in assuming that God does not exist or has nothing to do with it, would be very bad science indeed. Any time you make a theory or experiment dependent upon an assumption about God, it is bad science.
ble.

In my case, I assume a God put life here. In their case, they (not all of them, just those that are strictly naturalistic) assume that naturalistic causes explain how life and diversity got here.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

They think that God created the laws of nature, and then had nothing more to do with life getting here, but that the nature laws were enough.

You stated above that you perform your experiments with the assumption that natural laws are enough and thus perform good science. Are you recanting that now?

By doing this, they remove God from their study of science (biology).

God is removed from the study of science by the logical processes of science. It has nothing to do with any personal decision on the part of a scientist.

You can never ever falsify the conclusion that natural causes are adequate to explain life and its diversity.

So? There is nothing in the theory of evolution or any theory that says, "This theory is fully adequate to explain everything." As you continually fail to admit, evolutionary theory describes a process, a process that has occurred and is occurring (if the theory is correct) within life. These processes can be tested, and they can be falsified.

Perhaps that was a typo. I do that frequently. Rereading my post does leave me wondering what I meant. What I think I meant to say was that ID is capable of making testable hypotheses. However, the assumption of the existence of a designer (the explanation part) is not testable, just as the assumption that naturalistic causes explains how life got here are not testable, but are philosophical viewpoints.

The theory of evolution is not based on any such assumption. The theory may lead to that conclusion, depening upon the person's beliefs, but the theory itself is not based in such an assumption. Even if God popped some species into existence with a poof, evolution could still be a valid theory, as the process it describes could still be correct.

So, how do you propose testing the theory that concludes that eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes?

That isn't really a theory, especially not in and of itself. However, we can test it. If eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes, we would expect homology between them. We would not expect to find a eukaryote that did not rely upon RNA and DNA for its cell processes. If it did, and we could not find some sort of connection between it and other organisms, we would likely conclude that it could not have arisen from prokaryotes, which all rely upon these things as the most basic of processes.

IDers are not usually focussed on experiments that prove something was designed, just as most of science today is not focussed on proving that natural causes formed life.

Wow, now you've changed your tune. You used to tell us that IDers tested "information" and found that it must be designed.

ID interprets experimental data on the basis of a designer, just as naturalism will interpret the experimental data on the basis of natural causes only. The breakdown in logic, as you put it, applies to them both.

Incorrect, as the theory of ID is based in the assumption that there is a designer and evolutionary theory is not based in the assumption that natural causes explain everything. Evolutionary theory comes directly from the physical processes we have observed. It does not assume that the processes already observed explain everything, nor does it assume that there was no outside creator or designer. It simply does not assume that there was one.

Well, to be fair, then, you have to criticise Darwin, who wrote: ''Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.'' If you read carefully, you will find the word 'believe'.

I certainly have no problem criticizing Darwin. Nor do other scientists, considering how much Darwin's ideas have been changed over the years.

Meanwhile, you are quoting something that is already stated as a personal opinion, not as a scientific theory. He says, "Hey, I don't know, but I think we'll one day find this out." It would be like me saying, "Hey, I don't know if there is a particle smaller than the quark, but I think we'll find one one day." I am not claiming that my statement is a scientific theory, I am simply pointing out my own personal opinion on the physics.

No, you are quite wrong. Homology (as it stands defined in science) is testable and falsifyable, but the conclusion that humans were descended from some apelike creature is not testable.

You seem to be under the impression that "testable" = "provable." This is incorrect. We can certainly test this conclusion, by making predictions as two which aspects should be conserved and determining whether or not they are conserved. We can study fossilized evidence to see if we find a progression. We can study DNA evidence of many types of apes to see if we can determine a progression or order of difference. These things are all tests, and each could turn up evidence that throws us on our heads.

However, many experiments today are interpreted according to the theory that this did in fact occur. None of these experiments will ever falsify the theory. They will only try to provide evidence that fits with the conclusion. It is a logical conclusion, if you assume that life was brought about by natural laws. It is thus based on an assumption.
Furthermore, there remain many cases of homology that are concluded as NOT due to ancestry.

As far as I can see, anyone can do good science, regardless of their philosophy, so long as they follow the principles of science, and do not try in used hypotheses that are untestable.

This is exactly what I have been saying! And any hypothesis which is based upon an untestable assumption is, itself, untestable.

That is why both naturalistic science and ID is capable of doing science. The philosophy on which each is based will ensure that they approach their science from rather different angles.

Oops, you were actually saying something correct for a split second there. However, ID is based upon the assumption that there is a designer - an untestable assumption, and thus their hypotheses based in this assumption are, themselves, untestable.

I understand that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself. This approach is "Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!" ID should be creating experiments to test for a designer. ID is totally reliant on a designer to work. It introduces the factor of a designer into its explanations, and therefore it must produce hypotheses and experiments to verify this new factor. Otherwise it is baseless speculation ---> philosophy---> Not science.


Nope, you still are not seeing it the way I am (although that is not to say that I am more right than you). If we are to come to a conclusion over ID, we must be in agreement over what ID does. Remember my saying that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself? You say that is wrong. But I am a little curious over why you think ID should be testing for a designer, and that the designer should be testable, particularly when everyone knows that is impossible and not within the realm of science. The main difference that ID provides is a way of interpreting the data. The process of gathering data SHOULD be relatively the same as naturalistic based science.

What you are effectively saying is that ID should be like so, but that when it is like so, it isn't really science. You are trying to put it in the corner, and then rule that corner out of science. The problem with that is that ID is just not what you think it ought to be.


I'm not denying value in ID/Evolution debates. However this isnt the place for them. I personally feel you are squandering an oppurtunity. This was a chance for ID proponents, such as yourself, to stand up and give us the background, works, evidence, hypotheses, and validity of ID in its own right. So far (in generalised and over-simplified terms) you have said "Look at these places evolution cant explain fully. ID fits much better. Just dont ask us to confirm that there really is a designer" and "Nature looks complex. Therefore it looks designed. Therefore it must be designed". If you just want to debate ID alongside evolution then please create, or find, another thread. If you want to give a solid case for ID as an INDEPENDENT science, then here is the place to do it. As someone who has only ever seen evolution put forward a convincing independent argument i am genuinely interested in seeing if ID can do anything similar. (note: This is just my personal opinion, and as such is NOT an invitation to comment on evolutions arguments, please.)


When I first came to this thread, I hadn't found anyone really trying to defend or explain ID. It seemed like everyone was against it. So I thought I would give it a go, even though it remains largely unfamiliar to me, and I'm probably not much good at it. It definitely has been a good way for me to learn more about it.

Given my limited understanding of the area, I have done my best to demonstrate what ID is and what it is not. I never really began in this thread with the purpose of attacking evolution. But I do often mention evolution and it's criticisms, not because I feel that ID depends on it (not in the slightest), but that since evolutionary theory has been so widely accepted in science, it is much easier to describe and explain and defend ID and its processes by comparing it to evolutionary theory. For example, many people do not realize how much evolutionary thought is based on philosophy. ('It looks similar, therefore it must be related by ancestry, because there simply isn't any other alternative.') So when you criticise ID for being a philosophy rather than science, it is relatively simple for me to point out the philosophy component in evolutionary theory. If I tried to avoid mentioning the 'e' word (evolution), my goal of defending ID would be infinitely harder, because people would be so against having philosophy in science (because they don't realize that science is steeped in philosophy) everytime I tried to explain the philosophy behind ID.

I do feel that ID could be an independent science. For one, none of my science depends on any part of evolutionary theory (or on ID for that matter). It would be a simple matter of interpreting the data that I discover in terms of either ID or evolutionary theory. The science would mostly likely remain the same. It would, however, be a little different for those who science is more closely related to the issue of the origin of life, such as those who focus on the 'flow' of information. An example would be those scientists who are looking at the phenomenom of shrinking genomes. In that case, depending on which theory they favoured, the design (and the questions asked) of the experiment would most likely differ markedly.


Things we agree on:
1) The experiments of science can only be concerned with natural causes
2) Science cannot rule out the supernatural

Things i dont agree with you on:
1) Science should be able to invoke the supernatural in its explantions

Why i dont agree with you:
If you add in a factor you have to be able to create experiments to verify that factor. ID cannot do this. To add in a creator/designer is unscientific. This is a definate limitation of science, but one we must live with if we are to continue investigating nature and explaining them through what we can observe, rationalise, and verify.


You don't agree with including the supernatural in the explanations. This is the central issue, even one that Darwin fought over most.

However, the reason that you give is not the reason that he used. The limitation of science is that it simply cannot verify either the assumption that there is a designer or the assumption that there isn't (or that he didn't interfere). And yet Darwinism depends on the assumption that there isn't a designer. It isn't stated that way, but will be expressed in a positive way (i.e. that only natural causes account for the origin and diversity in life). This doesn't say directly that there was no supernatural involvement, but that is really what it implies, i.e., the purpose of making such a statement.

Both Darwinism and ID depends on assumptions, neither of which can be verified by experiments. In a sense, neither theory adds in the assumption, but rather they begin with the assumption. Once again, I have to show you what evolutionary theory is in order to defend ID against your criticism.


I view ID as I view God. I personally dont believe in either. However, due to their very nature, they may well both be entirely true but we have no way of definatively knowing. This is why even though ID might be correct it cannot be science. It cannot be naturalistically explained or observed.

If our difference in opinion on what science is is that vastly different then we really have reached a rather meaningless situation.


Because you don't believe in God, naturalism is your only option. But this is my point. Your belief in the non-existence of God has determined your favourite theory. Every human is subject to the same process. (The exception would be where some people believe in God and yet still believe that he used only naturalistic causes.) You are still trying to see science as naturalistic (it isn't, and it wasn't). Science is far bigger than either ID or naturalism. If science can be defined as naturalism, then you would be right, where ID is adding in God, it would mean that it is religion, not science. However, I would argue that science has been around a long time before the rise of naturalism. Perhaps science began (in a formal way) with the Greeks, who maintained that religion provided the limit to science. Darwin was very strongly against this, because he was pushing a naturalistic philosophy. It would bow to no authority except that which it could measure. In that sense, he wanted naturalism to have the authority. He could not tolerate any alternative. You may take his side if you wish, but you cannot logically prove yourself more in the right than me.

In the end, we will, of course, have to agree to disagree. At least we can do this agreeably, I hope.


The extrapolation works on the fact that macroevolution predicts certain things should be seen in fossil records, genetics, etc. These things are seen. We then invoke things like selection and random mutation to account for this. From there various studies have been done and examples shown to verify these causes. The rapid speciation of things such as the lake victoria chiclids into a vast array of sizes, colours, and subtle yet clear morphology changes, etc from a single group of ancestors within such a short space of time gives evidence for this.


I have one complaint to make. Here, you are defending evolution, but complain when I criticise it. To be consistent with how you set up this thread, you ought to resist the temptation to defend it. I will refrain from criticising your comments on evolution above, although I will happly comply if you change your mind.


I can quite happily accept that you havent seen enough detail filled in to accept macroevolution. But, as one of my esteemed NS colleagues bought up, science deals with filling in the gaps in its own understanding. I refer to the example of "fluffy the destroyer of worlds" (hope i got the name right) and the pixelated picture. As we keep getting higher resolution our understanding and conclusions become more accurate and validated.


It's not that I like ID because of the holes in evolutionary theory, but because I believe ID is closer to reality as I see it.

It is commonly argued that evolutionary theory is slowly filling in the gaps, but the IDers argue exactly the opposite, that the more scientists discover about nature, the greater the gaps appear, and the better the evidence fits in with design. Obviously, the philosophy on which the interpretation of the evidence is based is quite important to the conclusions at which one arrives.


The scientific community already has a great deal of evidence to suggest macroevolution and how microevolution produces macroevolution on much greater time scales then we can observe first hand in the space of our lifetimes. You've asked us what we would accpet as convincing evidence for ID. What would be convincing evidence for you for macroevolution?


Thats easy. When we have been able to document and observe and even demonstrate macroevolution in the way that we have been about to observe and document and demonstrate microevolution, then I will accept macroevolution.


I dont think i have to modify my understanding of it at all. I think ID just has to live by the rules of science and verify the factors it uses to explain itself. The origin, or nature, of the designer is unimportant. What is important is that ID is totally reliant on the designer existing. So it must produce experiments that can give evidence to support that there is one.


And yet you don't think that evolutionary theory ought to verify the claim of the absence of the interference of God and the claim that only natural causes are adequate.


Since you're fond of comparisons...
Evolution.
- God zaps down a complete living cell in the pre-cambrian.... No worries. Cell can then evolve.
- God doesnt exist so we have to rely on naturalistic causes... (take abiogenesis as read). first forms of self replicating 'life' then evolve.

ID
-God, over time, zaps down every species ready made ... cool but unprovable
-God zaps down x number of species and guides their evolution into the species he wanted to finish with. cant prove it happend and evolution is still a factor, but fine
- Aliens zap down pre-made species. massive crew of aliens seeding the planet remove all trace evidence of their intrusions. Impressive. unprovable. and close to impossible. And how did those hyper-intelligent, super-powerful aliens develop?
- The designer that ID doesnt want to prove exists doesnt actually exist.... organisms souls (which we also cant prove) design their own bodies and zap themselves down???


I do like comparisons, but I didn't really get the point of such a comparison. Do you mind having another go?
PS. you can leave out the aliens part.


Sorry obviously didnt make myself clear.
In this thread you said that the designer need not be supernatural. On another thread an IDer (i think it was you) said that it could have been highly advanced extraterrestrials. If this were the case it simply moves the problem to another place as you have to explain how those aliens came to be. And we should be able to see clear evidence of the existance of a natural creator if that were the case.


I said that the designer need not be supernatural for the experiments to work. However, the philosophy has it that the designer is most likely supernatural. Personally, I have never suggested extraterrestials. Not anywhere in NS. And I agree with you that including aliens does not solve much.


Finding a characteristic that does not have a purpose falsifies the experiment? Shouldnt that hold for final-stage organisms not just embryology? The appendix (that, if infected, can become a mortal threat), or vestigal limbs on whales and snakes, et cetera. If design makes it an end directed process why do the end products contain so many flaws and usless bits and pieces?


Finding a characteristic without a purpose may falsify the hypothesis, not the experiment. But it need not require an alteration in the theory, however, since the the conditions for which the design was designed may no longer be critical for the functionality of the design. (An example might be that the designer placed a particular design to help eg a lion digest grass. Now that the lion eats meat, that particular design may no longer be necessary. The discovery of such a purposeless design would be interpreted by both ID and evolutionary theory as supporting their respective theories.)

Modern science has traditionally been far to quick to label things as useless and junk. Examples have been the appendix and junk DNA. Junk DNA has certainly been shown to be important. The high homology between humans and apes demonstrates that it serves an important role in survival. That is something that both ID and evolutionary theory agree with. Recent research into the roles of the appendix have also meant that we are questioning whether it really is so useless after all. Another question may be to role of the ear lobe. Why do we have them? Some animals and birds seem to get about well enough without them. What purpose do they serve? A IDer will approach this from the perspective of design and purpose. An evolutionary scientist will try to show how having an ear lobe contributes such an advantage that those individuals with an ear lobe were selected. Both approaches are going to have their challenges.


If it is such an end directed process then shouldn't all life be more or less static? maybe a little microevolution back and forth like the beaks on darwins finches, but not the rapid mutations seen in viruses such as HIV. Or the rapid changes in morphology of the chichlids. Or throwbacks like babies born with tails containing muscle tissue, nervous tissue etc. Or speciation such as the london mosquitoes. Or evolutionary dead ends such as the thylacine, the panda (just give it time), neanderthal man, dodo, mammoths, sabre-tooth cats, proto-horse species. Seems strange to design animals with the expressed purpose of being outcompeted. At least your embyology post was on topic. Thank you.


Static life is a possibility, but certainly not an assumption that ID makes.
However, I didn't really get your point. Are you suggesting that the presence of a designer would mean that species would not go extinct? Or that mutations would not occur, like bad mutations that cause human diseases (of course one can always interpret a disease as meaning a throwback to the earlier evolutionary state, but this is hardly supportable by science). The rapid mutations by viruses would be a part of its design, according to ID, and successfully serves the purpose of avoiding detection of the immune system.

Remember my saying that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself?

Impossible. One cannot logically posit a designer, or even a design, without evidence of a designer.

But I do often mention evolution and it's criticisms, not because I feel that ID depends on it (not in the slightest), but that since evolutionary theory has been so widely accepted in science, it is much easier to describe and explain and defend ID and its processes by comparing it to evolutionary theory.

Changing your tune again? Earlier you told us that you could not possibly talk about the merits of ID without comparing it to evolutionary theory.

For example, many people do not realize how much evolutionary thought is based on philosophy. ('It looks similar, therefore it must be related by ancestry, because there simply isn't any other alternative.')

Evolutionary theory does not in any way add on that last part - that is what ID does, "This must be designed, because there isn't any other alternative." Evolutionary theory does not come from a, "there is no other way," mentality. It simply interprets the evidence and comes to a conclusion that is best backed by that evidence. The theory is always open to "other ways", and there is current debate, for instance, over the mechanisms and exactly how they work.

However, the reason that you give is not the reason that he used. The limitation of science is that it simply cannot verify either the assumption that there is a designer or the assumption that there isn't (or that he didn't interfere). And yet Darwinism depends on the assumption that there isn't a designer.

Incorrect. It does no such thing. Evolutionary theory (which is well beyond simple Darwinism) does not assume that there is no designer. In fact, there could be a designer and evolutionary theory could still be correct.

And yet you don't think that evolutionary theory ought to verify the claim of the absence of the interference of God and the claim that only natural causes are adequate.

If there were any such claim, then evolutionary theory would have to verify it. Luckily, there isn't.

Finding a characteristic without a purpose may falsify the hypothesis, not the experiment. But it need not require an alteration in the theory, however, since the the conditions for which the design was designed may no longer be critical for the functionality of the design.

In other words, "No matter what is said, you cannot falsify ID. I can always simply say, 'Well, that must be the way it was designed. It must have a purpose.'"

Nope, you still are not seeing it the way I am (although that is not to say that I am more right than you). If we are to come to a conclusion over ID, we must be in agreement over what ID does. Remember my saying that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself? You say that is wrong. But I am a little curious over why you think ID should be testing for a designer, and that the designer should be testable, particularly when everyone knows that is impossible and not within the realm of science. The main difference that ID provides is a way of interpreting the data. The process of gathering data SHOULD be relatively the same as naturalistic based science.
What is the means of interpreting the data that ID provides?

<snip><snip><snip>

I really do think we will have to agree to disagree on this.

But i'll make one last point before i sit back and watch to see if this actually progresses any further.

There is no such thing per se as an ID experiment, or an evolution experiment. There are just simply scientific experiments. The hypotheses we devise and the interpretations we come up with to relate to the hypotheses are how we define how the experiments support or do not support a theroy. The problem for ID is that the whole idea rests on there being a designer. Something even you have to admit cant be proven for or against. Science has to be able to verify the factors that it invokes in its explanations. A point you seem unable to acknowledge, understand or admit.

I only bring evolution into this to defend all the attacks you make on it. I try not to bring it up without being a direct response to something you said.

But, just as a comparison, the theory evolution doesnt claim that there isn't or hasn't been a designer/creator involved in biodiversity. It isnt saying that evolution is the sole cause of biodiversity. The observations of natural processes thus far have simply provided evidence to support that evolution is in effect in its own right. If you were willing enough to look properly at the theory you would find that it doesnt make any statements or implications about a supernatural power. As Dem said, if God did design certain species it would not exclude evolution in any way, and vice versa. Evolution doesnt require a designer to not-exist or to exist. ID is reliant on a designer existing however, and thats why the burden of proof for a designer is squarely in the IDers court. Something that is impossible, which makes the whole ID way of interpreting the data unscientific.

Remember my saying that ID is all about finding examples of design without experimenting for the designer itself? You say that is wrong. But I am a little curious over why you think ID should be testing for a designer, and that the designer should be testable, particularly when everyone knows that is impossible and not within the realm of science. The main difference that ID provides is a way of interpreting the data. The process of gathering data SHOULD be relatively the same as naturalistic based science.

There is indeed nothing wrong with the methods ID uses to gather data - it is just that this data is meaningless. Yes -if one assumes there to be a designer, the data gives an indication on how he did it. But the data itself cannot be used to claim such a designer existed at all.

I could use the same methods IDers use on a random piece of cow manure, and find things conforming to "Intelligent design" in it. Does that mean the responsible cow is much brighter than we thought, and its digestive tract under direct control of its brains ?