Evolution and Intelligent Design

[sandy_mcd]

Unless the ID movement specifically states that all research is to stop when an intelligent design hypothesis is concluded then you cannot assume that that's the case.

Ok, fine; that is one position. I find it a poorly supported one.
The facts:
The ID movement declared proof of ID some years ago.
In the meantime, rather than continue research they have put their efforts into popularizing their position.

But maybe, someday, they will do some other research.

The scientists who found the Antikthera (sp) mechanism did not just conclude design and quit. They have (and continue) to study the device.

So i will hold off until i see some evidence of any other interest in research.

[sandy_mcd]

What was the initial assertion of it being a ring specie based on?

That is a somewhat embarrassing surprise to me as a non-biologist that the gulls you brought up are not considered ring species. But that happens in science. People make mistakes.
Similarly, i am sure there are many rock formations where the specific details are wrong. It is a description of a complex random process. But the errors in assigning some rocks, or some gulls or salamanders, does not invalidate the fundamental principles.

[sandy_mcd]

I see you two are still learning how the scientific method works. let's review what a scientific theory is;
...
A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something you throw out there to see if it can be confirmed or falsified by repeated testing.
Of course we all know that historic timelines are untestable by scientific method.

As is much of science by such definitions.

[KBCid]

It would if it had no effect beyond just originating life. Buuut, as I just pointed out the system continues in order for replication to persist.

I think what Ivellious is trying to say is that even if a designer is necessary for implementation and continued maintenance of the
ST control system, that does not mean that the physical process of one species transitioning into a new species over time did not occur.

The design does not need "continued maintenance". It was designed and implemented once. This is automation to a degree that would put any human designer to shame.
The phyisical process of transition if true is what is begging to be explained and you can't explain it unless you can describe the system that allows it to occur. So regardless of whether my hypothesis of the system requiring a designer is true or not the fact remains that no one is defining how allele variations are implemented or what its boundaries are. This is a critical point. Evo's assert that all life came from 2 mechanisms RM and NS. This is an insufficient explanation since they are not definable in exactly how they perform their function and as I pointed out there is also no explanation of its limitations and unless you can define these points then no assertion can be made as to what it can possibly form. Therefore it is not a scientific explanation

Even if you were able to prove that the ST system was designed, that does not tell you whether the designer created all different species at one time, or if the designer controlled the gradual transition of a prokaryote to a human being. Proof of a designer would strongly suggest that random mutation/natural selection are not the driving forces behind the evolution of species, but that proof would not negate theistic evolution. It would not prove that we did not all start off as bacteria...or stardust for that matter.

Even if we were able to prove that the mechanism of evolution were true it would never prove that all species were derived from a single common ancestor either. However, if you understood the systems involved then it would shed some light on what the system is capable of producing and it may just be that everything cannot be derived from a single origin point which would mean that there were numerous origin points. Is it logical to assume that chance made a variety of forms by chance? Everything has implications and no one can make ultimate assertions based on an argument from ignorance which is what the ToE is trying to do.

Your argument is not as novel many of the posters here seem to think it is. Unlike the flagella/blood clot arguments, the complex system that you have identified must pre-date evolution. I get that.

So you think a spatiotemporal control system being required to allow the replication of life isn't novel? It's just a standard everyday occurance right? well everyone does get an opinion. Of course at one time a blob of plasm was the extent of what was needed to form life.
I'm glad you get that particular point. But, do you also realise that the system cannot be responible for forming the initial life forms? This is where understanding the automation system comes into play.

But your argument is no different from the people who argued that God must exist when the magic of electromagnetism was revealed or the people who argued that God must exist when we first introduced a map of the hydrogen diatom. Those exceptionally complex systems must also pre-date evolution, but the basic paradigm shift that ultimately resulted from huge discoveries like those was a greater interest in gaining knowledge through more observation and analysis--not a sudden shift toward belief in the supernatural.

Actually my argument is different than theirs because I am not positing an effect which isn't understood that requires a designer. The magic of automation is extremely well understood in the field of mechanical engineering which means that I am arguing from what I known. The hypothesis of a designer being necessary is also not based on the unknown. Every single automated system of 3 dimensional replication has been formed by ID. Thus my arguement is defined by mechanical understanding of known systems in conjunction with known originations for such systems.

On top of that, spatio-temporal control has been well-recognized throughout biochemical processes for quite some time. I'll put you in touch with professor who taught my grad school protein folding class; he can give you more details about the bioenergetics research that he and others in his field have been doing for forty years. And that's just protein...

Oh I agree "spatio-temporal control has been well-recognized throughout biochemical processes for quite some time" the problem is they haven't yet tied it all together as a single controlling system of 3 dimensional formation. I am quite aware of the research going on and I am also quite aware that they have no clue as to how the control is implemented. See my other thread about 3D spatiotemporal contol. I have posted a vast number of research papers where the system is recognised but not yet understood. So asserting that its being studied doesn't garner any relief from it not being understood correctly. The geocentric theory was believed correct for 15 centuries before it was finally figured out and the answer was completely the opposite of what they rationalized it to be.

We still don't know how energy came into existence, or why nuclear forces behave the way that they do, but the gradual unveiling of really complex ideas and systems is not evidence for or against design.

Really? Describe what you have observed forming automation systems that make 3 dimensional formations replicate. Remember science is based on what we can observe and test. Do a test on natural causes being able to form such a system and then tell us the results and I will to a test with ID and tell you the results. This is research by scientific method.
If you make the assertion that it takes a longer time frame to occur than can be tested by scientific method then you are operating outside of the bounds of scientific inquiry. No different than when someone sees lightning and asserts God did it. It is scientifically untestable.

Your argument that you have only seen intelligence create these kinds of systems confuses me a lot. I have never seen humans create something that even comes close to the complex systems that exist everywhere in nature--and even the introduction of "Synthia" that you previously referenced was only achieved through our attempt to mimic what we've observed.

Can you describe a spatiotemporal control system? Do you know how life replicates? If you don't know these answers then that would be the reason why you don't recognize the relationships of the system type being shown. In order to conceive of a sufficient cause one must first understand the effect. The effect is the formation of matter into highly complex 3 dimensional arrangements. Now all you need to do is describe how it is possible. I would ask that you define what is minimally necessary for the system to function and then describe how you think it may have come about.

I think that a lot of religious arguments for design come from the natural human difficulty in truly understanding "infinity". Christians readily describe God as an infinitely powerful being that has always existed and will continue to exist for all eternity, and they are comfortable with ascribing these characteristics to God because He is supernatural. Why is it okay to ascribe infinite possibilities and eternity to God, but not okay to ascribe infinite possibilities and eternity to the universe?

Indeed many people do have problems with infinity but what has that got to do with the topic?

We live on Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy. This is one of >170 BILLION galaxies that have been identified just within the finite Hubble Bubble. And beyond the bubble? Is it really that hard to believe that one micro-environment in ALL OF SPACE over BILLIONS OF YEARS is governed by thermodynamic properties that favor this specific space-time arrangement of matter? If it is difficult for you to imagine, then read some more about how big and old the universe really is.

I am one of the few who don't believe in creation ex nihilo so you would be wasting your time on me with this subject

Scientists will continue to reveal complex things, and then dissect those complex things into even more complex and amazing things. And people will probably continue to proclaim that because something is beyond their understanding that God must exist. But I'd say it's pretty arrogant to assume that some higher "intelligence," which we define in our own image as associated with thinking and reasoning, is the only entity with the capacity to create. We are small, and we don't know anything. God just makes that easier to accept.

I would point out here that imagining that anything can happen with enough time is no different than a belief in God. It is simply a redirect of what you are willing to believe has the causal power to form matter into speciic arrangements.
The great thing about being an intelligent designer is that you get to create and you get to form arrangements of matter that are unnatural to the forces of nature. This is what allows ID to differenciate between intelligent designed and natural in most cases.

[RickD]

I am one of the few who don't believe in creation ex nihilo so you would be wasting your time on me with this subject

KBC, before I jump to conclusions and get my panties in an uproar, would you say you believe in more of a "creatio ex deo"?

[KBCid]

I am one of the few who don't believe in creation ex nihilo so you would be wasting your time on me with this subject

KBC, before I jump to conclusions and get my panties in an uproar, would you say you believe in more of a "creatio ex deo"?

Nope Creatio ex materia. We have touched on this subject before but it appears to create to much discontent for me to test my POV on this subject here even though I would like to so. In the end I am content to know we both believe in the same creator. How the creation occured we can each have our own interpretation for and hope that no matter who is wrong it won't affect the final outcome. The fact is none of the macro order we observe comes from natural cause. It requires a designer.

[RickD]

I am one of the few who don't believe in creation ex nihilo so you would be wasting your time on me with this subject

KBC, before I jump to conclusions and get my panties in an uproar, would you say you believe in more of a "creatio ex deo"?

Nope Creatio ex materia. We have touched on this subject before but it appears to create to much discontent for me to test my POV on this subject here even though I would like to so. In the end I am content to know we both believe in the same creator. How the creation occured we can each have our own interpretation for and hope that no matter who is wrong it won't affect the final outcome. The fact is none of the macro order we observe comes from natural cause. It requires a designer.

I never really thought about it before, TBH. I didn't know it was such a touchy subject for some people. Sounds like the makings of a new thread.

[KBCid]

Nope Creatio ex materia. We have touched on this subject before but it appears to create to much discontent for me to test my POV on this subject here even though I would like to so. In the end I am content to know we both believe in the same creator. How the creation occured we can each have our own interpretation for and hope that no matter who is wrong it won't affect the final outcome. The fact is none of the macro order we observe comes from natural cause. It requires a designer.

I never really thought about it before, TBH. I didn't know it was such a touchy subject for some people. Sounds like the makings of a new thread.

I have thought about it ... ALOT. I have been studying this as much as I have the time to invest and would like to see how others make their rationale but it is a very ignitable topic. I prefer not to cause anything that has to do with 'panties' or 'uproars' as my wife would disprove of such things angrily and of course my concience would bother me (another of Gods gifts).

If you want to begin a thread I will participate up to the point where I feel like it becomes a personal affront to anyone discussing it but I am just as happy to discuss mechanics.

[KBCid]

What was the initial assertion of it being a ring specie based on?

That is a somewhat embarrassing surprise to me as a non-biologist that the gulls you brought up are not considered ring species.

This was no surprise to me as a mechanical engineer since I know how they form their predictions.

But that happens in science. People make mistakes. Similarly, i am sure there are many rock formations where the specific details are wrong. It is a description of a complex random process. But the errors in assigning some rocks, or some gulls or salamanders, does not invalidate the fundamental principles.

Yup people make mistakes and when you make enough of them then people tend to not believe anything you say. This is why the science of mechanical engineering is so enjoyable. We make a prediction based on theoretical models and then actually test them. Of course our predictions are based on models that have a long history of confirmation and relatively none of error.

I see you two are still learning how the scientific method works. let's review what a scientific theory is;
...A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something you throw out there to see if it can be confirmed or falsified by repeated testing.
Of course we all know that historic timelines are untestable by scientific method.

As is much of science by such definitions.

Such definitions as this;

Scientific method
is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
... identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.

Formulate a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?",

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe.
A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing.

Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the

predictions derived from an hypothesis.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take.

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[4] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences

The scientific process also includes other components required even when all the iterations of the steps above have been completed:
Replication: If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results were in error.

Scientific inquiry
The goal of a scientific inquiry is to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations that can predict the results of future experiments.

Beliefs and biases
Scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility diminishes the effects of cognitive biases For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief [naturalism] to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In my book hypothesis and testing happen before theories, but hey to each his own

[Ivellious]

Formulate a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?",

Some scientists, Darwin included, wondered how the great variety and types of life had originated on Earth. This questioned the long-held belief that all forms of plants and animals had existed since the onset of life on Earth.

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe.
A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Darwin, using knowledge gained during his voyage on the Beagle and additional studies and research after returning home, hypothesized that competition and natural selection could induce changes in a population over time. This was, generally speaking, "evolution by natural selection."

The hypothesis could have been falsified in an incredible number of ways. Later discoveries in genetics, in particular, could have destroyed evolution. We could have found that the system of inheritance was incompatible with Darwin's version of selection, traits could have been found to not be passed on through DNA, DNA could have been found to be perfectly replicating and never produce changes during replication, species could have been found to not have readily traceable phylogenies or may have had very little genetic information (or none) in common with other species, etc. etc...In addition, the fossil record could have produced discoveries that contradicted Darwin's model of evolution (rabbits living among dinosaurs, species existing millions or billions of years apart but not at all in between, complex life forms existing at a time when only single-celled life was expected to live, and so on).

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing.

A great many predictions were made by Darwin and other scientists of his time regarding evolution. Darwin predicted a system by which organisms passed traits onto their offspring that would be affected by natural selection. Predictions were made regarding future discoveries in the fossil record, most notably that over time life would continuously transition from species to species, and that the types of discrepancies I listed above would not be found (otherwise evolution would be falsified). More predictions were made later as discoveries in genetics and the fossil record were made.

Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis.

The "test" turned out to be a situation where predictions were made (see above) and determining whether the discoveries made in the related fields matched up to Darwin's initial proposal. Every major fossil discovery was a test of evolution, either it supported the hypothesis or it did not. Upon the discoveries in genetics, evolution once again faced a major test. Would discoveries in genetics plainly contradict evolution? Or would they fall under the predictions made about how inheritance and variety in life worked? When we started to map the genomes of different species, would we find that there were clear lines of inter-relatedness, would there be no relatedness at all, or would the lines of inter-relatedness contradict evolutionary timelines?

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take.

All the evidence in genetics and the fossil record have been rigorously analyzed, first on their own (to determine the validity of the discoveries), and then in the context of evolution to see whether it fits in with the evolutionary model, whether it helps clarify the model, or whether it simply does not make sense within the model. To this point, the basic predictions of the theory of evolution have proven to stand the test of time.

Replication: If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results were in error.

Indeed, evidence for evolution has had to be "replicated" in order to gain acceptance. Not in the same way as other sciences, however. In chemistry, oxidation and reduction reactions are considered to be opposite types of reactions (they have the opposite effect as the other). This had to be tested over and over to demonstrate that oxidation and reduction reactions to exactly what they were supposed to do.

However, the gray area comes in when you start talking about "replicating" evidence or tests for other sciences. In archaeology, would someone have to discover a city identical to the one I discovered for my research to be validated scientifically? I paleontology if I discover a new species does someone else have to discover an absolutely identical fossilized example dated and located in precisely the same time and place? For the sake of argument, in ID, would you have to demonstrate your evidence by "intelligently designing" every species on Earth using the same method as the designer just to show that it is "repeatable"?

I would certainly hope not. The "replication" aspect of evolution, as far as I can tell, is the continuous discovery of new fossil and DNA evidence over the past 100+ years that has not once contradicted the basic predictions of evolutionary theory.

In my book hypothesis and testing happen before theories, but hey to each his own

It took a long time for evolution to be classified as a "theory" and gain total acceptance in the scientific community. As I explained here, the hypothesis did come before the theory was accepted, and the great deal of evidence-gathering happened in between them...Just because more research and evidence comes forth today does not mean that evolution is invalid. It's just a sign of the scientific process continuing the search for greater clarity and understanding.

[KBCid]

It took a long time for evolution to be classified as a "theory" and gain total acceptance in the scientific community. As I explained here, the hypothesis did come before the theory was accepted, and the great deal of evidence-gathering happened in between them...Just because more research and evidence comes forth today does not mean that evolution is invalid. It's just a sign of the scientific process continuing the search for greater clarity and understanding.

the hypothesis was that variation was occuring and that is was heritable and that the best variations survived. This part is not in dispute by anyone I know. We all recognize that the living system is varying and we know it is through inheritance that the variations get their particular genetic arrangements.
I would question anyones perspective that doesn't completely agree with these truths. The problem has always been showing scientifically how the proposed mechanisms perform their functions. With one simple question I can clarify this problem.

Describe for me exactly how mutation occurs and becomes inherited and show the empirical tests that back the answer.

We can pretty much see every functional phase from parents to offspring right? there should be no problems defining how the evolutionary mechanisms functions to cause an effect right? Heck I actually get to 3D model a number of the functions in the system and so far every aspect of it is completely controlled spatially and temporally. Any form of systematic control should be easy to describe scientifically since it is systematic.
Gravity is systematic in how it functions and we can empirically describe it how it affects matter. Chemistry is systematic in how it functions and we can describe exactly how it works even though we have no idea how these things began. We can understand them because their persistent. Life and its mechanisms are persistent. We can poke and prod and do whatever we want to test it in real time. But try and get an evolutionary biologist to define exactly how the evolutionary system functions ... and we get opinions.

[sandy_mcd]

Gravity is systematic in how it functions and we can empirically describe it how it affects matter.

Has anyone ever seen a gravity wave? Gravity's just a theory until someone can produce and detect gravity waves in a laboratory.

Chemistry is systematic in how it functions and we can describe exactly how it works even though we have no idea how these things began.

Chemistry has even more made-up, unobserved transitional species than evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_intermediate

A reaction intermediate or an intermediate is a molecular entity that is formed from the reactants (or preceding intermediates) and reacts further to give the directly observed products of a chemical reaction. Most chemical reactions are stepwise, that is they take more than one elementary step to complete. An intermediate is the reaction product of each of these steps, except for the last one, which forms the final product. Reactive intermediates are usually short lived and are very seldom isolated. Also, owing to the short lifetime, they do not remain in the product mixture.
For example, consider this hypothetical stepwise reaction:
A + B → C + D
The reaction includes these elementary steps:
A + B → X*
X* → C + D
The chemical species X* is an intermediate.

Most of these proposed intermediates have little real evidence for their existence. Move along people, there's no science here.

[KBCid]

Gravity is systematic in how it functions and we can empirically describe it how it affects matter.

Has anyone ever seen a gravity wave? Gravity's just a theory until someone can produce and detect gravity waves in a laboratory.

Chemistry is systematic in how it functions and we can describe exactly how it works even though we have no idea how these things began.

Chemistry has even more made-up, unobserved transitional species than evolution. Most of these proposed intermediates have little real evidence for their existence. Move along people, there's no science here.

In the end you still missed the point. all of reference subjects are empirically testable. Which is my point against evolutionary mechanisms and other evolutionary hypothesis you cannot empirically test them.
When you are able to empirically test things via the scientific method then you can call things what you want because you will have repeatable evidence to back it, until then you can't equate evolution with chemistry or gravity. Any science that hypothesizes anything beyond the scientific methods ability to test is not proper science.

[sandy_mcd]

In the end you still missed the point. all of reference subjects are empirically testable. Which is my point against evolutionary mechanisms and other evolutionary hypothesis you cannot empirically test them.

And this point does seem to follow from all the definitions of science which have been posted. My problem with this interpretation is that practicing scientists use different criteria to define science.
Let's just consider one example: geology. Is geology a science? Scientists certainly consider it one.
In fact geology is very analogous to evolution.
People looked at present day (life forms / land forms).
They looked at remnants of the past - fossils / geological features.
They threw out the earlier ideas of stasis - life and land don't change.
They made observations fossil variation, continent edge matching etc and tried to come up with theories to explain them.
People guessed there had to be mechanisms for heredity and continental motion many years before the actual mechanisms were elucidated.
And both the type of lifeforms and the geography of earth extant today are the results of a number of forces which involve a large random component.
Starting with knowledge of early earth, there is no way to predict what specific creatures or landscapes will result. Therefore much of evolutionary biology/physical geology is describing what has happened. There are many misinterpretations of various specific phenomena; this in no way invalidates the main principles. People thought some species were ring species; the reality turns out to be more complicated. People thought the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon flowing south; now they think it flowed north much of the time. These errors and corrections are how real-world science works.
For a simpler example, consider a sandpile. Dump a bucket of sand on the ground; it will form a mound. This mound is a result of gravity and the sliding ability of sand. No one (or very few) doubt this. But sweep up the sand and dump it again. The result will be a different arrangement of sand. So according to some logic, this is not science. There is no reproducibility. Clearly (I hope) all will agree that dumping sand is scientific. And there are other factors which have to be considered. The shape of the pile depends on whether the sand grains are rough or rounded as well on the moisture content.
Making a mound of sand is similar to evolution/geology. Basic rules govern what will happen; the sand will fall due to gravity yet not form a monolayer on the ground. But determining the position and orientation of individual grains of sand will be a matter of description, not something calculable.

This argument has no direct impact on the validity of KBCid's spatiotemporal control design theory. But most revolutionary scientific ideas come from those familiar with the current paradigms.

[KBCid]

In the end you still missed the point. all of reference subjects are empirically testable. Which is my point against evolutionary mechanisms and other evolutionary hypothesis you cannot empirically test them.

And this point does seem to follow from all the definitions of science which have been posted. My problem with this interpretation is that practicing scientists use different criteria to define science.

The references that have been posted are not from my own personal website. Every single reference specifically states testability as an important part of the scientific method so there is nothing to interpret. You can either accept it as it is stated or deny it. I have no problem with the method as stated, my field of expertise depends on this system of understanding and it has worked exceptionally well to allow intelligent agents to form most of the things in life that we all depend on.

Let's just consider one example: geology. Is geology a science? Scientists certainly consider it one.
In fact geology is very analogous to evolution. People looked at present day (life forms / land forms). They looked at remnants of the past - fossils / geological features. They threw out the earlier ideas of stasis - life and land don't change.
They made observations fossil variation, continent edge matching etc and tried to come up with theories to explain them.

Geology has some empirical science involved in its operation and there are areas that are not empirical.
How scientific do things have to be to observe that life forms / land forms change? I don't think I have ever read of anyone thinking that everything was static. I am quite familiar with the concept that the universe was conceptually static but that is about it.
The only questions most people had various conceptual answers for was the question of what was causal to the change we are observing.
Geology and its operation can only be used empirically up to a certain extent and then it to becomes conceptual.

People guessed there had to be mechanisms for heredity and continental motion many years before the actual mechanisms were elucidated.

Indeed they guessed and they specified what they thought the mechanisms were. The question 'as usual' is ---how---do---you---know---their---guess---is---correct---. IF you cannot test a concept then you have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.

The Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

... identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What part of "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions" and "These steps must be repeatable" Are you having a hard time with is it the experiments or the repeatability?

...And both the type of lifeforms and the geography of earth extant today are the results of a number of forces which involve a large random component.

unfortunately neither you nor they have the experimental evidence to back that assertion.

Starting with knowledge of early earth, there is no way to predict what specific creatures or landscapes will result.

What "knowledge" of early earth. Knowledge implies knowing. ---how---do---they---know--- about the early earth. It is quite obvious that you accept concepts without sufficient backing and deem it truth,

Therefore much of evolutionary biology/physical geology is describing what has happened.

Does it really? ---how---do---you---know---their---description---is---correct---

There are many misinterpretations of various specific phenomena; this in no way invalidates the main principles.

really? that is the same rationale that kept the geocentric theory active for so long. This is where we should have learned from history that we should not propose a concept we can't test.

People thought some species were ring species; the reality turns out to be more complicated. People thought the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon flowing south; now they think it flowed north much of the time. These errors and corrections are how real-world science works.

Some people think they are competent at defining what a species is until something comes along to muddy the waters. Corrections can only truely occur if something can be experimentally challenged, this is the only way real-world science can work.

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe.
A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing.

Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis.

For a simpler example, consider a sandpile. Dump a bucket of sand on the ground; it will form a mound. This mound is a result of gravity and the sliding ability of sand. No one (or very few) doubt this. But sweep up the sand and dump it again. The result will be a different arrangement of sand. So according to some logic, this is not science. There is no reproducibility. Clearly (I hope) all will agree that dumping sand is scientific.

Dumping a bucket of sand is not scientific. If such was the case then my 5 yr. old is a scientist.

And there are other factors which have to be considered. The shape of the pile depends on whether the sand grains are rough or rounded as well on the moisture content.

So you are thinking that something you can manipulate and define is science? Science woud be to have someone make a conceptual claim about the bucket of sand and then perform a test by scientific method to see if it was valid.

Making a mound of sand is similar to evolution/geology. Basic rules govern what will happen; the sand will fall due to gravity yet not form a monolayer on the ground. But determining the position and orientation of individual grains of sand will be a matter of description, not something calculable.

here your rationalising that chaos theory is similar to how the science of evolution and geology function. So lets take your sand a bit further and observe that every time you dump the bucket the sand falls by the force of gravity acting on it and it makes a formation in nearly the same arrangement every time. Is this natural? how do you test to see if its naturally occuring phenomena?

This argument has no direct impact on the validity of KBCid's spatiotemporal control design theory. But most revolutionary scientific ideas come from those familiar with the current paradigms.

The argument is natural vs. unnatural.
If we revisit that last sand observation. What is it about the observed evidence that you would consider a valid point to assert that it was natural or unnatural. Keep in mind that there are probably millions upon millions of individual grains in the bucket. And then how would you construct a rigorous test for the assertion you choose.?

No matter which type of science you wish to allude to you will find that there are areas that follow the scientific method and areas that don't once you realise the difference then you can better determine what to take with a grain of salt and what you can take to the bank. In my scientific profession we use the scientific method because peoples lives are on the line. If we make a conceptual error... people die. This is why we prototype a concept BEFORE we accept the concept. We test things to have evidence to back what we concieve as the truth so that when we present our concept to another intelligent being they have 'grounds' to believe what we convey as true is actually true.

Describe how your science works again? you propose something is 'a fact' and can't provide the empirical testing to back the proposition.
How likely is it that other intelligent beings are simply going to believe you?

String Theory: Testing The Untestable?
String theory was originally developed to try and describe the fundamental particles and forces that make up our universe. Over the last 25 years, string theory has become some physicists' contender for a 'theory of everything', reconciling particle physics with cosmology - a puzzle that tormented Einstein for the last 30 years of his life.
It contends that the subatomic particles found in nature, such as electrons and quarks, may not be particles at all but instead tiny vibrating strings. String theorists said our universe is 10-dimensional but during the big bang, 6 of those 10 dimensions curled up into a tiny ball and the remaining '4' (they count time as a dimension even though it relies on the other three dimensions) expanded explosively, providing us with the universe we know and love, including the cast of "Jersey Shore".
How did these six dimensions compactify? There's no mathematical basis for topology and properties of these higher-dimensional universes. Where do strings come from? No one knew so what we ended up with were multiple 'string theories', which means it stands a chance of not being a theory at all. Some even proposed M-theory (11-dimensions) to get away from focusing on strings entirely.(1)
There's no shortage of instances where theory, deduction or inference have survived being falsifiable just fine and later been proven to be correct but in a modern science world a half dozen 'theories of a theory' won't get much traction outside people who want funding.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... untestable

I found a site that words things just about the way I would so I'm going to cite it;

The threat that atheists pose to science
Experimentation and the Scientific method going into disuse
In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific. But ever since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s they eliminated empirical testability as the main requirement needed for something to be considered scientific and substituted empirical testability with authority.
What this means is now if someone has authority they can propose any empirically untestable theory or hypothesis and it will be considered scientific. Gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, etc…can all be considered scientific and allowed into peer-reviewed journals with no problem if they simply have authority figures to back them.
So why can’t atheists understand that something cannot be scientific unless it meets the requirement of empirical testability?
Atheists don’t seem to have any problem with voicing any opposition to things like Intelligent Design, so why don’t they voice any opposition to things like the string theory? It’s because atheists don’t genuinely care about what is science or not, they care about advancing their own political agenda or making fun of religion, not about science. This is the reason that atheists never will voice any opposition to empirically untestable theories but always voice opposition to Intelligent Design, because atheists are insincere and don’t actually care about science.
Back when Theists ran science the scientific method and scientific method alone would determine whether or not a hypothesis or model or theory was valid not authority or personal incredulity. If someone wanted to be taken seriously they absolutely needed to find ways to test their hypotheses, not just authority figures to back them.
It is the scientific method that determines if something is valid or not, not authority or incredulity as atheists believe.
In modern times now that atheists are taking over they instead focus on mathematical speculations rather than experimentation and the scientific method.
If I have the mathematics for something but no way to test out if my mathematics are valid then I essentially have nothing more than speculations. With this reasoning I can claim that virtually anything is true if I have the mathematics for it (even though I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid). That is not science but instead pseudo-science since it does not adhere to the scientific method.
http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/ ... o-science/