The Prediction of Intelligent Design

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Do you have a problem responding to straightforward questions? My original request was:

Can you then share what science is? If ID is not science, what is it? How are you qualified to assess whether something is a part of science or not? Have you read any books on the history and philosophy of science? Are you a scientist?

followed by:

Now is the time for you to show what science is, why you say that is what science is, and why ID is not science, and we will take it from there.

Nowhere here have you attempted to formulate an answer to what science is, why is that considered science, what your qualifications are to assess whether something is science etc.

Science is the study of the natural world.
More specifically systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Without any logical basis, you jump straight into:

To put it simply, in order to propose an intelligent designer, there needs to be some evidence of the designer aside from the artifacts.

I'm confused, are artifacts not considered evidence? Are fossils not artifacts? Does this mean that fossils are not admissable as evidence in science?

We reach the conclusion that fossils are from ancient life through deduction. Can we do the same for design?

Also, consider what you are saying...you are saying there is no evidence of a designer, logically it follows that you are saying that there is no designer, and therefore no God. Are you an atheist?

No that does not logically follow. Thats a erroneous jump to a conclusion. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence against.

For example we have the blood clooting system. We can say that it evolved due to the support of evolution having occurred from many studies. But we can also say we don't know the exact mechanism which may have allowed this to happen.

So you are making an a-priori assumption that evolution has occurred.

This assumption is based on countless observations which lead to this conclusion. Until a better theory comes along any analysis done from this standpoint is not scientifically incorrect.

This is precisely the point, you keep on saying that science does not do that, it follows the evidence, but here, even though you don't know the mechanism, you make an assumption that it has to be explained by evolution. Why is that?

Again there is ample evidence that evolution has occurred, we may not know the precice mechanisms, nor the pathways for every system, but that does not negate the findings of many studies across a variety of diciplines.

For example we once didn't know how chemical reactions were actually creating the new compounds being discovered in the early 20th century. But we did know that they were the result of chemical reactions.

A scientific theory is a result of many experiments. The more observations and experiments are conducted whose results are explained by evolutionary principals the more powerful the theory becomes. There is nothing wrong with operating under the pretence of a theory in this way. This allows the theory to be examined, and critiqued from within.

For example we have a population of wild flowers which was divided because a volcano errupted in the middle of its range. Let's say this occurred several hundreds of years ago, and this particular plant flowers twice a year. One can assume that the populations must have diverged because of their isolation and then based on this collect data to see if this has indeed occured. It's a way to test the ideas of evolution over and over, experiment after experiment.

But in the case of the blood clotting mechanism, how can one test this? All we have now is a result of something occuring in the past. Correct? All we can do it try and peice the puzzle together, but we can never be certain.

But you are proposing that an unseen entity acted in an unknown way to influence the evolution of life on Earth for an unknown reason

No, I don't. You are again making assumptions, including the assertion that evolution is the primary mechanism, and needs only to be influenced.

Again if another mechanism can be identified, there needs to be empirical evidence for this, no?

Right from the start, my position has been very clear. the mechanism is God's word and will, created for His glory. Not unseen, not unknown, and not an unknown reason.

I am not denying that this is a possibility, but how exactly is this a scientific conclusion? Is this activity still observable in the present?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

I thought you were trying to convince me ID was a science, not of it validity.

But while we are on the topic, are you affirming the opposite? There is no designer, and all of life is down to random and purposeless processes?

I am not affirming there is no designer, I have said this many times.
Random and purposeless seems to be your subjective take on the objective nature of mutations.

Mutations occur randomly to us because we have no way of predicting them. However we do know that over the long run a rate of mutation can be roughly measured.

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need?

No, we need to know how it works. But if you see the need to know how things came to be, please explain how life came to be from your no-designer perspective.

I don't have an explanation, I am only stating that evolution appears to have occured, no mention of the origins of life. Why do you keep repeating this question?

Are you certain that it is impossible for evolution to have lead to this system?

Are you certain that evolution was responsible for this and all other systems? Yes, I am certain that evolution was not responsible for this or any other system. I'm sure looking forward to you proving me wrong. For my proof, see above.

Your proof above appears to be a quote from the bible. Powerful evidence it may be however, it does not rule out evolution nor does it apply to science.

Also, are you wanting to use science here to disprove that a designer did it? How can you do that if anything to do with a designer is not science, and it is merely a philosophical position? Can you disprove philopsophy with science then?

As long as there is an absence of proof science cannot deal with it.

If it is seen as a short comming in evolution that it doesn't have all the answers it is because science works this way!

Again we are back to what science is and isn't. This statement has to be evaluated against the definition of science. Anyhow, if you are proposing that that is how science works, then why are you anti-ID? You keep saying that ID does not have the answers, but then evolution does not either, by your own admission here.

ID does have the answers, it states that the unanswerable is a result of Intelligent Design.

Many of the answers will never be solved. We will never be 100% sure what killed the dinosaurs. We will never be 100% sure what happened in king Tut's family history. We will never know what the first life looked like or how exaclty it could have occured. We will never know how Stone Henge was really built.

I doubt that we have solve answers. Maybe if we stick to solving questions we will get much further.

lol

Ok fine, on what basis are you then asserting that ID is not science? And what does King Tuts family history have to do with science?

The scientific method is used to peice together historical details. ID is asserting that our limitations of explanation lead to the conclusion that something else is responsible and then identifies it as an intelligence. Doesn't there need to be more than this to reach a conclusion? If we can't even determine how Stone Henge was built how can you expect us to know the pathway the development of the Krebs cycle must have taken? So 30 years ago would I have been correct if I stated that Stone Henge was built with the assistance of a greater intelligence? Is it ok now to say that continental movement is caused by an unseen intelligence?

You claim enough knowledge about how life occurred to assert that it was not designed.

We cannot reach a conclusion by eliminating competing ideas. We have to be able to eliminate ID. How does one do that if the Designer is unknown, unseen, undetectable except in the only form of life we know?

Huh? First you say that we cannot reach a conclusion by eliminating competing ideas, and then you say we have to be able to eliminate ID? Now which is it, do we need to eliminate competing ideas or not?

Simply, proving one idea false obviously does not prove another true. We need to be able to test an idea. How is this done? By devising ways to disprove it. Yet how can we prove ID as false if the only evidence is the artifacts themselves? What sort of test can one devise to attempt to disprove ID and thus strenthen it's position?

And it is quite simple, ID can be eliminated by showing feasible biological pathways to complex systems that support the hypothesis of random and purposeless mechanisms.

So the only way to falsify ID is to be absolutely certain of everything? How is this science? How can you have a theory without composite hypothesis and experiments? A theory is an all encompasing idea which explains many, many observations. ID is not made up of countless observations and experiments, it is only an objection to the existing theory.

Note that this will not do away with theistic evolution though.

Saying that design is a result of intelligence is anthropomorphizing, and human arrogance.

Huh? Can you show designs that were not the result of intelligence?

Take your computer program. Is it a result of an iterative process spanning decades of work, or did it just come out through your fingertips?

I also fail to see how that follows, seems like a non-sequitor unless you can prove it.

Explain to me how anything is truly designed in the human world.

And how is this different to saying that we humans decided that all life is due to the blind random processes of evolution?

No one decided the observations forced us to reach this conclusion. Mutations do occur, and do change the gene pool. Many of them are harmful and lead to the conclusion that mutations occur weather or not it is detrimental to the organism.

That must seem pretty arrogant to God...

All we are trying to do is describe the mechanisms of life set forth before us. How is that arrogant, when a scientist will be the first to tell you he/she does not know.

Everything we have at our disposal, all of our "designs" are a result of an iterative series of changes and improvements

No it's not, that is why there are things called inventions.

Inventions happen in a sealed room?

And what does this have to do with the argument? You are inconsistent too, above you said that design is not the result of intelligence, and here you say that there are changes and improvements which account for everything we have at our disposal. Did those changes and improvements just happen by themself, or was there some intelligence involved? How about them inventions, I guess some copper molecules just arranged themselves by accident to give us a telegraph, which two people just happened to pick up and send messages to each other.

No however this intelligence observed something and put it to practical use. Nothing was actually created.
Would it have been possible to have made this invention if we had not discovered electricity yet? Sponges build complex skeletal structures yet do not possess a brain. Engineers have discovered that the structure is superior and is similar to the designs which we have reached through generations of experience. Is this "design" a result of intelligence?

Humanity could never have "designed" the universe, an intelligence such as ours is sorely lacking and it is laughable to compare our intelligence to what may have created the universe.

No, it was that unseen, unknown entity. Who on earth is comparing our intelligence to that of a creator? But I'm curious, why are you saying that the universe was created or designed? I thought there was no way to see that it was created, since we don't have any evidence.

I am saying that there is insufficient evidence either way. Why do you put words in my mouth? Are you angry?

ID may indeed be the path to the truth, however science at this point requires much more empirical evidence.

Like what, a little "Made by Jehova" label on every atom? Seriously though, the empirical evidence is being interpreted wih an a-priori assumption that it was due to evolution, like you did above.

Evolution states changes occur, not why they occur. It's the mechanism only, why do you still confuse this. It seems no matter what you really want to beleive that evolution is inherently athiestic.

So even if those little labels were there, evolutionary theory would still ascribe it to chance.

That sounds like a bitter statement. I can assure you the majority of scientists are not athiests.

But I'll play, what kind of empirical evidence will convince you that ID is true?

In order to know that life is a result of a higher force we need more than just the life on earth as a comparison. For instance if life on other planets followed an identical path then we can be certain that the chances of this occuring are close to nill. But better evidence would be the formation of a new species in a way that evolution could never account for. Lets say a whole new type of animal, a thorn covered jumping warm blooded vertebrate which reproduces by budding and rears its young on its back which has buds of nourishing protein growing on it. Or evidence for this designer. I really don't know because almost anything else is covered by ID and does not disprove it one way or another. Similarities in genome or disimalarities both fall under posibilities under ID. Gradual development or creation events also are both explained by ID. ID can account for almost any observation made in the life sciences. I have no clue how to test it.

Thus ID is a philosophy, which one may embrace in the persuit of science.

I'm sure the folks over at the Departments of Forensics and Archeology will be thrilled to hear they are engaging in philosophy.

How so? We know that what they are studying is human activity through experience.

Your conclusion here is a non-sequitor, by the way, what premises lead you to believe that ID is a philosphy and not a science, can you please define what science is? And let's grant your argument for a second, if ID is used in the pursuit of science, what will you call the science related to that philosophy?

Science.
Empirical data stands on it's own regardless of the philosophy of the scientist who took the measurements.

Do you then also agree that the philosophy of atheism has its science called evolution?

No.

Intellectually satisfying answers does not a science make. Science is rewarding because every discovery leads to even more questions, its an overwhelming neverending never resolving search which will last a thousand lifetimes.

Is that your definition of science?

Please try to answer the pretty straightforward questions posed here and previously. If you can't or won't, just say so, and we will leave it at that.

I beleive I have been answering your questions.
I am sorry if you feel if I have been inadequate in my explanations.

You asked me for the definition of science, I have provided it many times.
You asked me if I beleived that evolution disproves the existance of God, I have said no to this many times.
You ask me if evolution is mindless and, mechanical, the description of any process is mindless and mechanical.
You ask me if the implications of evolution is atheism, I have replied countless times no.

Are there any other questions I forgot to mention?

[sandy_mcd]

Can you then share what science is?

I am going pretty much with Bgood on this one, using definition 2 from answers.com

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.

In the past, science used to have a much broader definition. Nowadays, however

b. In modern use, often treated as synonymous with 'Natural and Physical Science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use. Also attrib., as in science-class, -master, -teacher, -teaching.
1867 W. G. WARD in Dubl. Rev. Apr. 255 note, We shall..use the word 'science' in the sense which Englishmen so commonly give to it; as expressing physical and experimental science, to the exclusion of theological and metaphysical. 1870 YEATS Nat. Hist. Comm. Introd. 14 An acquaintance with science or with the systematised knowledge of matter and its properties. 1895 Educat. Rev. Sept. 25 Science-teaching is nothing, unless, it brings the pupil in contact with nature. 1913 C. MACKENZIE Sinister St. I. II. vii. 253 Science is all the go nowadays... And Science is what we want. Science and Religion. 1946 R. J. C. ATKINSON Field Archaeol. 12 One more problem..remains to be mentioned, the problem of co-operation between archaeologists and workers in other sciences. 1955 Bull. Atomic Sci. Apr. 141/1 Science has become a major source of the power of civilized man. 1976 Norwich Mercury 17 Dec. 3/8 Second year prizes{em}English,..mathematics,.. science,..history,..geography,..music. 1978 Nature 10 Aug. 522/1 Funds for lunar sample analysis have remained roughly constant over the past few years and the programme has received praise for the high quality of the science conducted.

I would go further and divide science into "physical science" such as chemistry, physics, geology, etc and biological or life science.

1) Rant 1. No matter which definition you use, consistency is desired. People whose definition of science includes theology or mathematics as well as natural science should use the term "natural scientific method" instead of "scientific method". Otherwise you sound like

Fr. Duffy calls theology the queen of the sciences ... "You don't apply scientific methods to understanding theology," he says.

2) Rant 2. I have thought of suggesting that this site have a glossary for regulars. Whether you agree with the definitions or not, at least everyone would know what is meant by a term. English has a huge vocabulary with many words which mean almost the same thing. Unfortunately the difference in meaning to me of the words A and B is often less than the difference between my meaning of A and someone else's definition of A. So this huge vocabulary is wasted. The meanings of words change with time (cf science). Dictionaries report the common usage of words, not some imposed meaning. Thus when people misuse words (such as conflating "impossible" with "highly unlikely") it makes communication that much more difficult. A classic example is given by two words which can no longer be used to convey information as many people will be confused:

biweekly

1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks

bimonthly

1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month

We don't need any more Humpty Dumpty's. [quote="Lewis Carroll (in "Through the Looking Glass")"]"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."[/quote]

[sandy_mcd]

... Sandy ha repeatedly said that ID is not science.

Possibly, but given my faulty memory, I actually don't recall ever haven(sic) written that.

I was hoping August (or someone) would refer me to one of the posts in which I claimed this. Perhaps he is looking, or maybe great minds just think alike ?

a little "Made by Jehova" label on every atom?

examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God

[August]

Apologies for my absence, I also have to work for a living, and it's that time of year where a lot of changes happen. By design....

Science is the study of the natural world.
More specifically systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Ah, excellent, now we are getting somewhere. So, within your definition of science, what are the precise criteria to determine whether something is a part of science or not? The second part of your answer is slightly confusing to me. Is "experimentation, observation, and study" the methodology by which you arrive at this knowledge? Also, can you please define what exactly it is what you mean by "the natural world"?

We reach the conclusion that fossils are from ancient life through deduction.

I don't quite see what this has to do with my question. You claimed something about artifacts, which was part of the strawman you constructed around ID, to which I asked whether artifacts are inadmissable as evidence. It does not matter what you deduced, you are saying that there has to be evidence apart from artifacts. That would disqualify all types of artifacts, not just the ones that you want exclude. However, to come back to the strawman, the evidence for a designer is in the design itself, not from artifacts, whatever you mean by that. I understand you mean it to be ancient scriptures etc?

Can we do the same for design?

Yes, we can see that those fossils, and everything else alive or once living, was or is designed. By the way, deduction is not accepted scientific method, induction is.

No that does not logically follow. Thats a erroneous jump to a conclusion. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence against.

You have to show where the logic is flawed. If there is a designer, he designs stuff, in this case, life. If there is a designer, we would expect to see evidence of design, or else Occam's Razor applies, and we conclude there is no designer. Otherwise, why are you arguing against ID here? If there is no evidence of design, then on what basis would you believe there to be a designer if he designed nothing? Is design not the evidence for a designer?

Also, you did not answer the second part. Are you an atheist?

This assumption is based on countless observations which lead to this conclusion.

All of which followed the same a-priori assumption, based on your definition of science above, which you have not demonstrated as necessarily valid.

Until a better theory comes along any analysis done from this standpoint is not scientifically incorrect.

See? But you have to show why your definition of science is necessarily valid, and why you can exclusively claim evolution to be the only valid hypothesis.

Again there is ample evidence that evolution has occurred, we may not know the precice mechanisms, nor the pathways for every system, but that does not negate the findings of many studies across a variety of diciplines.

So what you are doing is making an a-priori assumption in favor of evolution, and you are inferring something from indirect evidence. If you cannot show the pathways or mechanisms, you are merely filling in the blanks with what you wish it to be. It does not matter how many times you do this, it does not become valid after many times of repeating the same fallacy.

A scientific theory is a result of many experiments. The more observations and experiments are conducted whose results are explained by evolutionary principals the more powerful the theory becomes. There is nothing wrong with operating under the pretence of a theory in this way. This allows the theory to be examined, and critiqued from within.

You are showing time and again that you are assuming evolutionary theory to be true before you interpret the results of the experiments. How can there ever be an alternative hypothesis if this is the case?

But in the case of the blood clotting mechanism, how can one test this? All we have now is a result of something occuring in the past. Correct? All we can do it try and peice the puzzle together, but we can never be certain.

Huh? What happened to the countless observations, confirmed by many experiments etc?

So let me recap this:
1. We know that evolution happened
2. because of countless observations and experiments,
3. but it is untestable as in the case of the blood-clotting mechanism
4. so we can't be certain (you are going to have to define what it is you mean by certain)
5. but evolution is good science, because we assume it happened, but we cannot test if it happened for sure.

Again if another mechanism can be identified, there needs to be empirical evidence for this, no?

Sure. But you cannot arrive at an alternative hypothesis if you continue to interpret the observations in terms of what you believe to be true. What would you consider to be empirical evidence for design?

I am not denying that this is a possibility, but how exactly is this a scientific conclusion? Is this activity still observable in the present?

We are back to defining science. My answer will not have any relevance until we conclude that discussion.

I thought you were trying to convince me ID was a science, not of it validity.

You were the one that brought the question of the designer into it. In terms of ID's scientific validity, it has no bearing, since ID does not try to identify the designer. It is merely the detection of design.

I am not affirming there is no designer, I have said this many times.
Random and purposeless seems to be your subjective take on the objective nature of mutations.

So which is it? Is there a designer or not, or don't you know?

As for my "subjective" take, it is also the "subjective" take of evolutionary biologists in their textbooks:
"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring
process of natural selection... "
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (2nd ed., 1986), p. 3.

But please explain how random and purposeless is objective? You also misstated me, I said processess and you said mutations.

I also want to make sure here that I understand you are saying I'm being subjective when I quote from a leading biology textbook? Is the author of that book then also subjective? And why should my subjectivity be invalid as opposed to your subjectivity, when you come to conclusions based on indirect evidence?

Mutations occur randomly to us because we have no way of predicting them. However we do know that over the long run a rate of mutation can be roughly measured.

So we are all subjective then? And what exactly do you mean by prediction in this context? I think we discussed this before, but if you cannot predict them, you cannot test, as per your earlier example, explain to me again why evolution is considered solid science?

I don't have an explanation, I am only stating that evolution appears to have occured, no mention of the origins of life. Why do you keep repeating this question?

What the heck? You were the one that brought up origins when you asked

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need?

I merely followed the question to its logical regress, which is if we can explain the origin of the blood clotting system, then how do we explain the origin of the parts etc, down to the beginning of life?

Your proof above appears to be a quote from the bible. Powerful evidence it may be however, it does not rule out evolution nor does it apply to science.

How does it not rule out evolution?

And we are back to what science is....

Also, you did not answer my question, but I will go with what you said before, you are not certain. So if you are not certain, on what basis do you presume to say that I'm incorrect?

As long as there is an absence of proof science cannot deal with it.

Back to what science is, seems pretty fundamental to the discussion. You are asserting that there is no evidence for design though, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

ID does have the answers, it states that the unanswerable is a result of Intelligent Design.

What is the unanswerable that you refer to here? You are begging the question, by saying that ID is false because it proposes answers to questions that cannot be answered from your worldview.

The scientific method is used to peice together historical details.

Ok.

ID is asserting that our limitations of explanation lead to the conclusion that something else is responsible and then identifies it as an intelligence.

Nonsense. Nowhere does ID assert that. Please show a source from ID literature that states that.

Doesn't there need to be more than this to reach a conclusion? If we can't even determine how Stone Henge was built how can you expect us to know the pathway the development of the Krebs cycle must have taken?

Sure there needs to be more. ID is in its infancy as a science, and needs a lot more research to validate the hypothesis. Why can we not determine what the pathway for the Krebs cycle was? Your explanation for everything seems to hinge on the fact that we don't know, but we assume it evolved. How is that different from we don't know, but we can suggest it was designed because it exhibits the characteristics of design. Even evolutionary philosophers accept this, I think it's Dawkins that stated that biological complexity had the appearance of design.

The problem is that you are committing the slippery slope fallacy. You are saying that once we say something is designed, we will stop trying to figure out how it works so that we can apply it, use it, fight it or whatever the case may be. That is untrue. For a scientist interested in the practical applications of biological structures, it should make no difference whether something is designed or not. They will still conduct research into how it works, the origin does not matter.

Simply, proving one idea false obviously does not prove another true. We need to be able to test an idea. How is this done? By devising ways to disprove it. Yet how can we prove ID as false if the only evidence is the artifacts themselves? What sort of test can one devise to attempt to disprove ID and thus strenthen it's position? So the only way to falsify ID is to be absolutely certain of everything? How is this science? How can you have a theory without composite hypothesis and experiments? A theory is an all encompasing idea which explains many, many observations. ID is not made up of countless observations and experiments, it is only an objection to the existing theory.

I guess I went through most of this already. Please define artifacts. Please show what ways were devised to disprove evolution. Where did I state that we have to absolutely sure of everything to disprove ID? I said that it can be disproved by showing a unguided biological pathway to a complex system. How is it science to throw your hands in the air and declare that since you don't know, nothing is valid? Please show from ID literature that it is just an objection to a current theory. That's typical of the hysterical strawman attacks against ID.

Take your computer program. Is it a result of an iterative process spanning decades of work, or did it just come out through your fingertips?

Please explain how computer programs write themselves. Where did the orginal source code come from, how was it debugged, how did specifications from customers get into it, how was it made user friendly, without human intervention?

Explain to me how anything is truly designed in the human world.

Define "truly designed". Also, please give us your insights as to where things like the internal combustion engine, telegraph etc comes from, oif they were not designed.

No one decided the observations forced us to reach this conclusion. Mutations do occur, and do change the gene pool. Many of them are harmful and lead to the conclusion that mutations occur weather or not it is detrimental to the organism.

Huh? Yes, someone decided that the observations leads us to that conclusion. Otherwise where did the conclusion come from?

All we are trying to do is describe the mechanisms of life set forth before us. How is that arrogant, when a scientist will be the first to tell you he/she does not know.

That is not all you are trying to do. You are also asserting that those mechanisms necessarily exclude the involvement of a transcendental being.

Inventions happen in a sealed room? No however this intelligence observed something and put it to practical use. Nothing was actually created. Would it have been possible to have made this invention if we had not discovered electricity yet?

How is that relevant to the invention of the telegraph? Electricity was needed, as was math, mining, refining, manufacturing and a whole host of things. But the ability to send a message between points did not exist, it had to be invented. Following your logic, there must be a evolutionary pathway for everything on earth.

Sponges build complex skeletal structures yet do not possess a brain. Engineers have discovered that the structure is superior and is similar to the designs which we have reached through generations of experience. Is this "design" a result of intelligence?

Yes. Is the design the result of non-intelligence, according to you?

I am saying that there is insufficient evidence either way. Why do you put words in my mouth? Are you angry?

Where am I putting words in your mouth? I responded to your statement. If you are saying you don't know, on what basis do you presume to tell anyone they are wrong? You are arguing from ignorance. I will ignore your little personal jab there.

Evolution states changes occur, not why they occur. It's the mechanism only, why do you still confuse this. It seems no matter what you really want to beleive that evolution is inherently athiestic.

It seems no matter what, you don't want to deal with the implications of evolutionary theory. No matter how many times you assert the neutrality of evolution, it is not neutral.

I thought evolution stated that changes occur because of natural selection of random mutations, selecting those specimens that adapt to their environment the best. That sure looks like a why to me, species exist because they are best adapted to their environment.

Please explain to me how I'm confused. Are you angry?

That sounds like a bitter statement. I can assure you the majority of scientists are not athiests.

But the majority of biologists are....

In order to know that life is a result of a higher force we need more than just the life on earth as a comparison. For instance if life on other planets followed an identical path then we can be certain that the chances of this occuring are close to nill. But better evidence would be the formation of a new species in a way that evolution could never account for. Lets say a whole new type of animal, a thorn covered jumping warm blooded vertebrate which reproduces by budding and rears its young on its back which has buds of nourishing protein growing on it. Or evidence for this designer. I really don't know because almost anything else is covered by ID and does not disprove it one way or another. Similarities in genome or disimalarities both fall under posibilities under ID. Gradual development or creation events also are both explained by ID. ID can account for almost any observation made in the life sciences. I have no clue how to test it.

What is the difference between having a whole new species formed, as opposed to a biological system? How about the Cambrian explosion, where that actually happened? Not only species, but at the phyla level.

look at the paragraph above, and substitute ID with evolution. EG: Evolution can account for almost any observation made in the life sciences etc...

How so? We know that what they are studying is human activity through experience.

How do they determine whether something is due to human activity or not? How do they apply that experience?

Science.
Empirical data stands on it's own regardless of the philosophy of the scientist who took the measurements.

But the interpretation of the data does not. Even the way that the data was acquired does not stand on it's own in the case of experiments.

You asked me for the definition of science, I have provided it many times.
You asked me if I beleived that evolution disproves the existance of God, I have said no to this many times.
You ask me if evolution is mindless and, mechanical, the description of any process is mindless and mechanical.
You ask me if the implications of evolution is atheism, I have replied countless times no.

But you never answered why you believe these things, the closest we get is "I don't know".

These posts are getting impossibly long, I would suggest we stick to what seems to be the fundamental question around the definition of science.

[August]

... Sandy ha repeatedly said that ID is not science.

Possibly, but given my faulty memory, I actually don't recall ever haven(sic) written that.

I was hoping August (or someone) would refer me to one of the posts in which I claimed this. Perhaps he is looking, or maybe great minds just think alike ?

a little "Made by Jehova" label on every atom?

examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God

I'm not searching, it looked to me like it followed from your previous posts. If misrepresented you I apologize.

The logical question is then whether you affrim the existence of a designer?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Science is the study of the natural world.
More specifically systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

Ah, excellent, now we are getting somewhere. So, within your definition of science, what are the precise criteria to determine whether something is a part of science or not?

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

The second part of your answer is slightly confusing to me. Is "experimentation, observation, and study" the methodology by which you arrive at this knowledge? Also, can you please define what exactly it is what you mean by "the natural world"?

Anything which you can apply the scientific method is part of the natural world.

We reach the conclusion that fossils are from ancient life through deduction.

I don't quite see what this has to do with my question. You claimed something about artifacts, which was part of the strawman you constructed around ID, to which I asked whether artifacts are inadmissable as evidence. It does not matter what you deduced, you are saying that there has to be evidence apart from artifacts. That would disqualify all types of artifacts, not just the ones that you want exclude.

No. Evidence apart from the artifacts qualifies them as artifacts. Otherwise you are presuming they are artifacts.

However, to come back to the strawman, the evidence for a designer is in the design itself, not from artifacts, whatever you mean by that. I understand you mean it to be ancient scriptures etc?

This is what I meant, you need to identify designer before you can reach the conclusion of design.

Can we do the same for design?

Yes, we can see that those fossils, and everything else alive or once living, was or is designed.

How?

No that does not logically follow. Thats a erroneous jump to a conclusion. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence against.

You have to show where the logic is flawed. If there is a designer, he designs stuff, in this case, life. If there is a designer, we would expect to see evidence of design, or else Occam's Razor applies, and we conclude there is no designer.

??

Otherwise, why are you arguing against ID here? If there is no evidence of design, then on what basis would you believe there to be a designer if he designed nothing? Is design not the evidence for a designer?

WHAT???
You said
"you are saying there is no evidence of a designer, logically it follows that you are saying that there is no designer, and therefore no God"
No it does not follow logically.
No evidence for design does not equal no designer and does not equal no God.
No design <> no designer
and no designer != no God.
A designer is a posibility. There is no evidence either way.

Also, you did not answer the second part. Are you an atheist?

No, and this is imaterial.

All of which followed the same a-priori assumption, based on your definition of science above, which you have not demonstrated as necessarily valid.

Huh? I don't understand. Observations are just that. Please use actual data, this is science not philosophy.

Until a better theory comes along any analysis done from this standpoint is not scientifically incorrect.

See? But you have to show why your definition of science is necessarily valid, and why you can exclusively claim evolution to be the only valid hypothesis.

I am open to alternative explanations. Then we can set up an experiment to see if it is supported by the natural world.

Again there is ample evidence that evolution has occurred, we may not know the precice mechanisms, nor the pathways for every system, but that does not negate the findings of many studies across a variety of diciplines.

So what you are doing is making an a-priori assumption in favor of evolution, and you are inferring something from indirect evidence. If you cannot show the pathways or mechanisms, you are merely filling in the blanks with what you wish it to be.

You are twisting words here. I stated precise mechanism and pathways. It's like stating the ancient egyptions built the pyramids but we don't know the exact method they used.

It does not matter how many times you do this, it does not become valid after many times of repeating the same fallacy.

It's not me repeating, experimental results have repeatedly failed to disprove the many facets of evolution.

You are showing time and again that you are assuming evolutionary theory to be true before you interpret the results of the experiments. How can there ever be an alternative hypothesis if this is the case?

The experiments are there, feel free to place an alternative conclusion for any of the experiments in this thread. Conclusions of an experiment are very narrow and many don't even mention evolution.

But in the case of the blood clotting mechanism, how can one test this? All we have now is a result of something occuring in the past. Correct? All we can do it try and peice the puzzle together, but we can never be certain.

Huh? What happened to the countless observations, confirmed by many experiments etc?

Exactly experiments are done on the facets of evolution. So in this case we will do comparative analysis of blood clotting mechanisms between organisms. Or collect data on the variations which exist in the blood clotting mechanism. Or do a study on disorders related to the blood clotting system. But in the end we can not duplicate the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism. Correct?

So let me recap this:
1. We know that evolution happened
2. because of countless observations and experiments,
3. but it is untestable as in the case of the blood-clotting mechanism
4. so we can't be certain (you are going to have to define what it is you mean by certain)
5. but evolution is good science, because we assume it happened, but we cannot test if it happened for sure.

No, actually look at the experiments, the experiments are to show that the mechanisms of evolution exist. Take physics as an example, we cannot cause the moon to go into a different orbit. However we can take measurements of gravity and distance and from this data we can predict the orbit of objects. Using this data we can then plot the course of a probe going to Saturn by using the gravity of Mars as a catapult.

You are talking about specifics. We only need to demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution. Such as natural selection, genetic drift, radiation, mutation, among others.

Again if another mechanism can be identified, there needs to be empirical evidence for this, no?

Sure. But you cannot arrive at an alternative hypothesis if you continue to interpret the observations in terms of what you believe to be true.

This is not what is done. For example we may wish to test drift. We then take a population of mice. We take blood samples of all individuals and split it into two. Then we place them in identical environments. After several generations we again take blood samples. Then we report wheather or not drift occurred. You see we were testing drift.

What would you consider to be empirical evidence for design?

It's your theory make an experiment to test one of the components of ID.

I thought you were trying to convince me ID was a science, not of it validity.

You were the one that brought the question of the designer into it. In terms of ID's scientific validity, it has no bearing, since ID does not try to identify the designer. It is merely the detection of design.

How can you be certain that design is only the result of a designer without having seen the designer?

I am not affirming there is no designer, I have said this many times.
Random and purposeless seems to be your subjective take on the objective nature of mutations.

So which is it? Is there a designer or not, or don't you know?

I don't know.

As for my "subjective" take, it is also the "subjective" take of evolutionary biologists in their textbooks:
"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring
process of natural selection... "
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (2nd ed., 1986), p. 3.

Sounds like you have a problem with an author not the theory of evolution.

But please explain how random and purposeless is objective? You also misstated me, I said processess and you said mutations.

From the scientific viewpoint we cannot detect any purpose nor can we predict it. So how would you describe this? It's like the path of a hurricane, is there a meaning to the path it takes? Is there a predictability to how strong it will be or exactly where one will form?

I also want to make sure here that I understand you are saying I'm being subjective when I quote from a leading biology textbook? Is the author of that book then also subjective?

It would apear so. The book was published in 1986, I am quite sure it is no longer a leading textbook.

And why should my subjectivity be invalid as opposed to your subjectivity, when you come to conclusions based on indirect evidence?

We don't want subjective data. Look at the data.

Mutations occur randomly to us because we have no way of predicting them. However we do know that over the long run a rate of mutation can be roughly measured.

So we are all subjective then? And what exactly do you mean by prediction in this context?

We don't know when and what sort of mutation will occur.

I think we discussed this before, but if you cannot predict them, you cannot test, as per your earlier example, explain to me again why evolution is considered solid science?

We can measure them. And we can detect them.

I don't have an explanation, I am only stating that evolution appears to have occured, no mention of the origins of life. Why do you keep repeating this question?

What the heck? You were the one that brought up origins when you asked

If accepted how can we determine how the blood clotting system came to be? And is there even a need?

I was simply stating what the consequences of accepting ID would be. We don't know and will never kow how the pyramids were built, does that mean we should stop studying them?

I merely followed the question to its logical regress, which is if we can explain the origin of the blood clotting system, then how do we explain the origin of the parts etc, down to the beginning of life?

That's completely understandable, unfortunately science doesn't have much to say on that.

Your proof above appears to be a quote from the bible. Powerful evidence it may be however, it does not rule out evolution nor does it apply to science.

How does it not rule out evolution?

It doesn't state evolution was not the method of creation.

And we are back to what science is....
Also, you did not answer my question, but I will go with what you said before, you are not certain. So if you are not certain, on what basis do you presume to say that I'm incorrect?

When did I state you were incorrect? I only stated that ID is not a scientific theory.

As long as there is an absence of proof science cannot deal with it.

Back to what science is, seems pretty fundamental to the discussion. You are asserting that there is no evidence for design though, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

How do you test it? Are there any experiments which have supported ID?

ID does have the answers, it states that the unanswerable is a result of Intelligent Design.

What is the unanswerable that you refer to here?

The origin of certain systems.
Apparently some systems are not irreducible complexity and some are.

You are begging the question, by saying that ID is false because it proposes answers to questions that cannot be answered from your worldview.

No you do, ID videos are full of statements that evolution cannot explain this and that, so ID must be the answer. Am I wrong?

ID is asserting that our limitations of explanation lead to the conclusion that something else is responsible and then identifies it as an intelligence.

Nonsense. Nowhere does ID assert that. Please show a source from ID literature that states that.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... %20Science

The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.

However the evidence appears to be the inability of the current theory to explain it to one's satisfaction.

Doesn't there need to be more than this to reach a conclusion? If we can't even determine how Stone Henge was built how can you expect us to know the pathway the development of the Krebs cycle must have taken?

Sure there needs to be more. ID is in its infancy as a science, and needs a lot more research to validate the hypothesis. Why can we not determine what the pathway for the Krebs cycle was? Your explanation for everything seems to hinge on the fact that we don't know, but we assume it evolved. How is that different from we don't know, but we can suggest it was designed because it exhibits the characteristics of design.

Because we have evidence supporting the mechanisms of evoloution.

Even evolutionary philosophers accept this, I think it's Dawkins that stated that biological complexity had the appearance of design.

Yes, but without empirical proof of the designer it can only be assumed, not stated as fact.

The problem is that you are committing the slippery slope fallacy. You are saying that once we say something is designed, we will stop trying to figure out how it works so that we can apply it, use it, fight it or whatever the case may be. That is untrue. For a scientist interested in the practical applications of biological structures, it should make no difference whether something is designed or not. They will still conduct research into how it works, the origin does not matter.

I NEVER STATED THIS, I even explicitly stated that a scientist can practice science with the philosophy of ID. The point is we don't know whether it is designed or not.

I guess I went through most of this already. Please define artifacts.

Life, in this case. The result of design.

Please show what ways were devised to disprove evolution.

I have done this plenty of times.

Where did I state that we have to absolutely sure of everything to disprove ID? I said that it can be disproved by showing a unguided biological pathway to a complex system.

Really? So if I show that one of the irreducibly complex systems is not really irreducible you will drop it all together?

How is it science to throw your hands in the air and declare that since you don't know, nothing is valid? Please show from ID literature that it is just an objection to a current theory. That's typical of the hysterical strawman attacks against ID.

I don't need to. It is your responsibility to devise experiments around the theories of ID.

Take your computer program. Is it a result of an iterative process spanning decades of work, or did it just come out through your fingertips?

Please explain how computer programs write themselves.

They don't and neither does DNA. It is copied.

Where did the orginal source code come from, how was it debugged, how did specifications from customers get into it, how was it made user friendly, without human intervention?

In this case the human being is part of the environment of the code. The programmer is the engine which drives the evolution of computer programs. As you can see it is clearly an iterative process. As you gain more experience your coding style changes. And nothing is written completely and correctly the first time. So what are you designing? Any engineer knows that trial and error beats simply designing something on a computer and then building. It is never perfect the first time.

Explain to me how anything is truly designed in the human world.

Define "truly designed". Also, please give us your insights as to where things like the internal combustion engine, telegraph etc comes from, oif they were not designed.

Think of human society and technology as part of the global human organism. In this analogy a part used for a carengine in one area and being transported for use as a boatengine somewhere else is analagous to parts being reused in a single organism or a cell. You are asking me to assume that each invention is isolated, this is simply not the case.

No one decided the observations forced us to reach this conclusion. Mutations do occur, and do change the gene pool. Many of them are harmful and lead to the conclusion that mutations occur weather or not it is detrimental to the organism.

Huh? Yes, someone decided that the observations leads us to that conclusion. Otherwise where did the conclusion come from?

What is your analysis then?

All we are trying to do is describe the mechanisms of life set forth before us. How is that arrogant, when a scientist will be the first to tell you he/she does not know.

That is not all you are trying to do. You are also asserting that those mechanisms necessarily exclude the involvement of a transcendental being.

No you are adding that yourself.

Inventions happen in a sealed room? No however this intelligence observed something and put it to practical use. Nothing was actually created. Would it have been possible to have made this invention if we had not discovered electricity yet?

How is that relevant to the invention of the telegraph? Electricity was needed, as was math, mining, refining, manufacturing and a whole host of things. But the ability to send a message between points did not exist, it had to be invented. Following your logic, there must be a evolutionary pathway for everything on earth.

So you think the telegraph just appeared suddenly?
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sfbmhtml/sfbmtelessay.html

The laying of the cable---John and Jonathan joining hands
Prints and Photographs Division. Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-5309
The idea of using electricity to communicate over distance is said to have occurred to Morse during a conversation aboard ship when he was returning from Europe in 1832. Michael Faraday's recently invented electromagnet was much discussed by the ship's passengers, and when Morse came to understand how it worked, he speculated that it might be possible to send a coded message over a wire. While a student at Yale College years before, he had written his parents a letter about how interesting he found the lectures on electricity. Despite what he had learned at Yale, Morse found when he began to develop his idea that he had little real understanding of the nature of electricity, and after sporadic attempts to work with batteries, magnets, and wires, he finally turned for help to a colleague at the University of the City of New York, Leonard D. Gale.

Sponges build complex skeletal structures yet do not possess a brain. Engineers have discovered that the structure is superior and is similar to the designs which we have reached through generations of experience. Is this "design" a result of intelligence?

Yes. Is the design the result of non-intelligence, according to you?

Do you have actual proof it is the result of intelligence?

I am saying that there is insufficient evidence either way. Why do you put words in my mouth? Are you angry?

Where am I putting words in your mouth? I responded to your statement. If you are saying you don't know, on what basis do you presume to tell anyone they are wrong? You are arguing from ignorance. I will ignore your little personal jab there.

You keep making the leap from no evidence to meaning no creator. Why?

Evolution states changes occur, not why they occur. It's the mechanism only, why do you still confuse this. It seems no matter what you really want to beleive that evolution is inherently athiestic.

It seems no matter what, you don't want to deal with the implications of evolutionary theory. No matter how many times you assert the neutrality of evolution, it is not neutral.

How so? You can;t just state it isn;t neutral, do you have evidence supporting this? And I mean empirical evidence, not opinions and long rationalization.

I thought evolution stated that changes occur because of natural selection of random mutations, selecting those specimens that adapt to their environment the best. That sure looks like a why to me, species exist because they are best adapted to their environment.

Yes this is correct.

Please explain to me how I'm confused. Are you angry?

Not at all.
=)

That sounds like a bitter statement. I can assure you the majority of scientists are not athiests.

But the majority of biologists are....

Most of the experiemnts in biology are not directly related to evolution. As for most biologist being athiest or not, who knows and it's immaterial.

In order to know that life is a result of a higher force we need more than just the life on earth as a comparison. For instance if life on other planets followed an identical path then we can be certain that the chances of this occuring are close to nill. But better evidence would be the formation of a new species in a way that evolution could never account for. Lets say a whole new type of animal, a thorn covered jumping warm blooded vertebrate which reproduces by budding and rears its young on its back which has buds of nourishing protein growing on it. Or evidence for this designer. I really don't know because almost anything else is covered by ID and does not disprove it one way or another. Similarities in genome or disimalarities both fall under posibilities under ID. Gradual development or creation events also are both explained by ID. ID can account for almost any observation made in the life sciences. I have no clue how to test it.

What is the difference between having a whole new species formed, as opposed to a biological system?

Fine observing a whole new biological system form is just as good. Yet even if this does occur one needs to show the mechanism.

How about the Cambrian explosion, where that actually happened? Not only species, but at the phyla level.

Sorry??? Those phyla are based on modern classification of existing forms. You do understand that phyla is just a grouping of animals and does not really exist as an actual entity? They are phyla today because they have diversified since then. In other words if we were to come across those animals today we could classify them all under the same order!

look at the paragraph above, and substitute ID with evolution. EG: Evolution can account for almost any observation made in the life sciences etc...

We only apply evolution because the mechanism of evolution have yet to be falsified. And it is these mechanisms which have been supported countless times by many experiments across many disciplines.

How so? We know that what they are studying is human activity through experience.

How do they determine whether something is due to human activity or not? How do they apply that experience?

By comparison.

Science.
Empirical data stands on it's own regardless of the philosophy of the scientist who took the measurements.

But the interpretation of the data does not. Even the way that the data was acquired does not stand on it's own in the case of experiments.

Give me an example, I don't understand. Please use an actual scientific paper.

You asked me for the definition of science, I have provided it many times.
You asked me if I beleived that evolution disproves the existance of God, I have said no to this many times.
You ask me if evolution is mindless and, mechanical, the description of any process is mindless and mechanical.
You ask me if the implications of evolution is atheism, I have replied countless times no.

But you never answered why you believe these things, the closest we get is "I don't know".

These posts are getting impossibly long, I would suggest we stick to what seems to be the fundamental question around the definition of science.

Shouldn't we be focusing on what Omnipotent chance means?

[August]

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

Are those all the criteria to determine whether something is properly part of science? Who decided that that definition of science is the valid one, and why?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

Are those all the criteria to determine whether something is properly part of science? Who decided that that definition of science is the valid one, and why?

The greeks used to observe then formulate hypothesis and then reach a conclusion.
Observe
Hypothesize
Formulate conclusion.

This method did not return to the field to test the hypothesis. Thus leaving out a fundamental maxim of the scientific method.
Observe
Hypothesize
Experiment
Formulate conclusion.

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/An ... cience.htm

We accept today that science follows certain rules and processes that make it a dependable source of information, but those rules have not always been in place. Until as recently as the 1700s, for instance, it was widely believed that living things could arise spontaneously from non-living, dead, or waste materials (this is called spontaneous generation), because people saw such materials "generate" living things like mold, or maggots. In 1688, Italian naturalist Francisco Redi set out to test the idea with decaying meat in two containers: one open to the air, the other sealed. The open container meat eventually became infested with maggots. And when critics insisted that it was simply that sealing the second container kept spontaneous generation from occurring, Redi did the test with an open container and one covered with cheesecloth, through which air could circulate (he suspected what we now know, that flies were the actual source of the maggots), and the cheesecloth-covered sample produced no maggots. However, even after many aspects of spontaneous generation became recognized as wrong, the basic concept persisted: when germs were first discovered it was thought that they were a spontaneous product of sick tissues, rather than independent-living organisms that reproduced in the body.

An experiment allows one to test the hypothesis or a portion of the hypothesis.

[August]

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

Are those all the criteria to determine whether something is properly part of science? Who decided that that definition of science is the valid one, and why?

The greeks used to observe then formulate hypothesis and then reach a conclusion.
Observe
Hypothesize
Formulate conclusion.

This method did not return to the field to test the hypothesis. Thus leaving out a fundamental maxim of the scientific method.
Observe
Hypothesize
Experiment
Formulate conclusion.

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/An ... cience.htm

We accept today that science follows certain rules and processes that make it a dependable source of information, but those rules have not always been in place. Until as recently as the 1700s, for instance, it was widely believed that living things could arise spontaneously from non-living, dead, or waste materials (this is called spontaneous generation), because people saw such materials "generate" living things like mold, or maggots. In 1688, Italian naturalist Francisco Redi set out to test the idea with decaying meat in two containers: one open to the air, the other sealed. The open container meat eventually became infested with maggots. And when critics insisted that it was simply that sealing the second container kept spontaneous generation from occurring, Redi did the test with an open container and one covered with cheesecloth, through which air could circulate (he suspected what we now know, that flies were the actual source of the maggots), and the cheesecloth-covered sample produced no maggots. However, even after many aspects of spontaneous generation became recognized as wrong, the basic concept persisted: when germs were first discovered it was thought that they were a spontaneous product of sick tissues, rather than independent-living organisms that reproduced in the body.

An experiment allows one to test the hypothesis or a portion of the hypothesis.

I just want to make realy sure that you are saying that something is science if it can be subjected to the scientific method, and that there are no other demarcations to determine whether something is properly part of science or not?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

Are those all the criteria to determine whether something is properly part of science? Who decided that that definition of science is the valid one, and why?

The greeks used to observe then formulate hypothesis and then reach a conclusion.
Observe
Hypothesize
Formulate conclusion.

This method did not return to the field to test the hypothesis. Thus leaving out a fundamental maxim of the scientific method.
Observe
Hypothesize
Experiment
Formulate conclusion.

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/An ... cience.htm

We accept today that science follows certain rules and processes that make it a dependable source of information, but those rules have not always been in place. Until as recently as the 1700s, for instance, it was widely believed that living things could arise spontaneously from non-living, dead, or waste materials (this is called spontaneous generation), because people saw such materials "generate" living things like mold, or maggots. In 1688, Italian naturalist Francisco Redi set out to test the idea with decaying meat in two containers: one open to the air, the other sealed. The open container meat eventually became infested with maggots. And when critics insisted that it was simply that sealing the second container kept spontaneous generation from occurring, Redi did the test with an open container and one covered with cheesecloth, through which air could circulate (he suspected what we now know, that flies were the actual source of the maggots), and the cheesecloth-covered sample produced no maggots. However, even after many aspects of spontaneous generation became recognized as wrong, the basic concept persisted: when germs were first discovered it was thought that they were a spontaneous product of sick tissues, rather than independent-living organisms that reproduced in the body.

An experiment allows one to test the hypothesis or a portion of the hypothesis.

I just want to make realy sure that you are saying that something is science if it can be subjected to the scientific method, and that there are no other demarcations to determine whether something is properly part of science or not?

=P
Of course all observations need to be empirical, and experiments need to be reproducible.

Science deals in objective measures not subjective experiences. This is a result of the empirical nature of the observations.

But yes in essence science is the study of the natural world and the knowledge garnered from the application of the scientific method.

Science is the study of the natural world.
More specifically systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

[predagio]

Intelligent Design is definately correct. Your conceptualization of what does and does not occur is based on the internal mechanisms of your mind. You actively make choices, through life, and develop certain biases and prejudices to certain truths, that actively dis-engage certain parts of your mind from manipulation by the Creator. Remember the law when Jesus spoke and said "if you deny me, so shall I deny you." Well, baring the responsibility of understanding that the Creator has his hands in all things. You understand that because certain parts of your mind have blocked knowledge of the Creator. The Creator, by the law he has created, cannot subject or force you to accept his existence. Then when you try to correlate certain scientific principles and logical analysis, you come to blocks in your mind. The intuitive mind offers gateways to releasing these blocks, by way of prayer or meditation, humming of certain tones, etc. Sometimes a logical block can be so stagnant it is hard for the water to flow. Therefore, I say, that if you have evaluated all the scientific evidence of the Creator and still do not understand that he exists, you could be stuck. If you believe in intuitive processes such as psychic awareness, you could open your mind that way but you'd be in trouble with the Creator. You would be guilty of idolitry, placing yourself before God, and not understanding that you didn't make yourself. That you also didnt make any of the things around you. So then, if you seek intuitive guidance to find evidence of the Creator. The question is do you believe in his son. If you meditate then you could subject yourselves to the forces of evil, which will help you open your mind, because you are asking THEM. They probably will show you a twisted version of God, and maybe try to lead you down the path to damnation, but perhaps, having realized the the world and universe is bigger and greater than yourself, you will pray to the lord and he will pluck you onto your proper path. WHy not save yourself the trouble and realize these things now, not being a knuckle-head, and understanding, responsibility and Order. That message was only directed at those who were meant to read it.

Also I'm adding that part of your knowledge is based on memory cognition through genetic inheritance, it is a highly complex system in which the intuitive mind on higher dimensional levels, works with the physical constructs of the DNA which hold knowledge. That is why when you are born, even though you are in the womb, your eyes are made for light before you even see the light. That is because your body was made as a temple for the spirit, and because spirit can go into many things, the body was designed for evolution, and the intuitive processes of the spirit correlate with whatever host "body" the Creator or itself has actively chosen it to incarnate into. It truly is an intelligent design