Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

No and never has done.

And never will.

Cheers.

It sure does and the link proved that very fact. This question has been asked many, many times of me and I have said that ID does used the scientific method and here is your proof of that very fact.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

It is poor netiquette to have 3 separate threads on the same topic all coming from the same poster.

1) "They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC)." In the sciences, the terms must not be ambiguous. You cannot form a researchable question upon ambiguous terms. The term "irreducible complexity" assumes the observation and the desired conclusion.

2) "If they find them [supposed evidence of IC], they can conclude design." No. Very unscientific. They should be calculating the probability it was due to design or the probability it was not due to design. (Now, how do they propose to do THAT?!?) Even if the probability it was not due to design turned out to be very low, it could still be not due to design! Perhaps a lurking variable has been ignored.

3) " Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design." Who's understanding? Wait. What?!? OK, please find me evidence of the first humans that spoke and evidence that they designed language and how.

From the table:
4) "Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example." Why did the creator(s) choose to repeat themselves? Functional things could be made in so many ways! So, it must be they said, "Hey, we've found something that works. Let's stick without. We could go around being original for each and every life-form we create ... errr, design, but heck, we're ust happy we could do it this once."

So, as we see in my previous post, first bullet point: circular reasoning is NOT science.

Have you ever googled the topics that you post and have you read the links that have nothing to do with any part of the Discovery Institute's many offshoots?

If you ever have then you'll see that your theology theories are all either shot down and I've yet to find any other Scientific Organization backing that intelligent design is in any form related to science of any type.

Here's another good quote,

Intelligent design and scientific method
Posted on January 7, 2008 | 15 Comments

The intelligent design movement (ID) is not a school of scientific research – more a political, social and religious movement. IDs initiator and main theological guru, Phillip Johnson, admitted this in 1996 when he said: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science . . . It’s about religion and philosophy.”

Cheers.

It is poor netiquette to have 3 separate threads on the same topic all coming from the same poster.

But that is standard behaviour at Seti on Friday nights :-)

Here's a scientific fact for you. The world does not work Monday to Fridays. You really need to do two things. Go to bed earlier so that your brain can wake up properly refreshed.

If it doesn't just hit that reset switch.

---

Return to topic....

Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

The answer is yes, the theory sure would be using the scientific method.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Here...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

What predictions does "intelligent design theory" make, that can be tested?
If the designer is no longer actively meddling in this Universe does that mean that she's dead?

One of their predictions is "there will be no junk DNA" (and, perhaps, no vestigial organs/appendages?).

If we remove a vestigial tail, does a human no longer function?

What predictions does "intelligent design theory" make, that can be tested?
If the designer is no longer actively meddling in this Universe does that mean that she's dead?

One of their predictions is "there will be no junk DNA" (and, perhaps, no vestigial organs/appendages?).

If we remove a vestigial tail, does a human no longer function?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-debunk-junk-dna-theory-to-reveal-vast-majority-of-human-genes-perform-a-vital-function-8106777.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/why_we_call_the063041.html

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Yawn...

This has rattled around for some considerable time. "Junk DNA" was so called because nobody had found a use for it, or what its function was. Progressively functionality bits were identified, and so there was less "junk" than there was. The word "junk" was/is a short hand for "We don't know what it does, we don't know if its got a function and we are going to carrying on looking to see if really does something, or is really and truly garbage". The popular press (like The Independent, and many others) picked up on this rather lazy word as it made for a short headline. I doubt that many, if any, in the fields studying the function genomes actually believed much of that DNA which was functionally unassigned believed that it really was "junk", rather was in the huge bucket of "Tuit DNA" (which might have been a better word to have used?).

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Please let me know when you come to a point. Yawn...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Intelligent Design

is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not
observed and can never be re-created.

...Sci-Am.

Pssst. THAT thread is over <=== here.

Intelligent Design

is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not
observed and can never be re-created.

...Sci-Am.

Pssst. THAT thread is over <=== here.

Pssst. THAT is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

OK, my point is, you (and, by inference, other protagonists of the Intelligent Design Theory) are attempting to create a story from a bit of (very poor) shorthand.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Not at all. And you have not had time to watch and listen to the above links I posted.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Sorry, your posts are all newer than the fist use of "junk DNA" as a lazy shorthand so are just as irrelevant as the Independent's article.
(I fist heard the term "junk DNA" about 30 years ago, by a genetics researched I worked with who was answering a question which went along the lines "What do you call the rest of the genome?" answer "Junk DNA, because we haven't worked out what it does yet, but it almost certainly does something".)
So, go back and read PRIME sources, rather than UK mass media, or your usual selective reviews.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sorry, your posts are all newer than the fist use of "junk DNA" as a lazy shorthand so are just as irrelevant as the Independent's article.
(I fist heard the term "junk DNA" about 30 years ago, by a genetics researched I worked with who was answering a question which went along the lines "What do you call the rest of the genome?" answer "Junk DNA, because we haven't worked out what it does yet, but it almost certainly does something".)
So, go back and read PRIME sources, rather than UK mass media, or your usual selective reviews.

Ah, so you finally come to a point. If it's not junk then it's designed. Correct?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...