Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[Gman]

Yes zoegirl is right, I don't believe God uses chance at all, in fact I believe there is no such thing as true chance. Just because something looks like chance to you and I and whatever looks like complete randomness in the science lab today does means that God uses chance and randomness. It also doesn't mean that what looks like chance today will still look like chance to us tomorrow. The continuing study of the natural sciences reveals every day a new reason for a cause and every time that happens the idea of true chance gets more unrealistic and more unrealistic. In short it simply looks like chance to us because God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and God's ways are higher than our ways. That is the basic gist of it.

Ok I understand... And I realize that God could have used any mechanism he wants to create things. My belief is that this thinking aligns more with theistic evolution. To each their own I guess.. Again I would stress is that "chance" or "randomness" is a weak argument. It has never been seen to produced life out of non-living matter. Nothing to fear here...

Perhaps we would want to phrase "chance" then as "Godance" then or something.. Why? Because naturalists see chance as their God (no spirit though). There is absolutely no divine intervention in the word "chance" to them.

That web pages uses all it's arguments from two books dated 1995 and 1992. This page below is a web page from YEC's AiG and it's a list of what arguments not to use in defense of a young earth. Much of which are found in the link you provided...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... nt_use.asp

The link you provided also implies that YEC's deny certain facts of nature , however unintentionally, because they did not fit into their belief system, and that old earth creationists do not fall under this category. I think there are good arguments for both young and old earth creationism. My only suggestion is to read the evidence for YEC from a current YEC website and not old YEC evidence interpretation from an old earth creation website only.

I'm not advocating either sides here, I think we need to look at both evidences with the least amount of bias as possible. My personal conclusion from my 10 years of study in it is that I simply do not know.

Ok no problem. But just because the dates are old doesn't mean that the information is invalid now.. Try this website then for more rebuttals..

http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm

Cheers..

[Jad]

Yes zoegirl is right, I don't believe God uses chance at all, in fact I believe there is no such thing as true chance. Just because something looks like chance to you and I and whatever looks like complete randomness in the science lab today does means that God uses chance and randomness. It also doesn't mean that what looks like chance today will still look like chance to us tomorrow. The continuing study of the natural sciences reveals every day a new reason for a cause and every time that happens the idea of true chance gets more unrealistic and more unrealistic. In short it simply looks like chance to us because God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and God's ways are higher than our ways. That is the basic gist of it.

Ok I understand... And I realize that God could have used any mechanism he wants to create things. My belief is that this thinking aligns more with theistic evolution. To each their own I guess.. Again I would stress is that "chance" or "randomness" is a weak argument. It has never been seen to produced life out of non-living matter. Nothing to fear here...

Perhaps we would want to phrase "chance" then as "Godance" then or something.. Why? Because naturalists see chance as their God (no spirit though). There is absolutely no divine intervention in the word "chance" to them.

Yes you are absolutely correct God could have used any mechanism he wanted to create with. We seem to limit the indescribable to something only we can describe. And yes "chance" or "randomness" is a very weak argument. It simply does not exist.

That web pages uses all it's arguments from two books dated 1995 and 1992. This page below is a web page from YEC's AiG and it's a list of what arguments not to use in defense of a young earth. Much of which are found in the link you provided...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar ... nt_use.asp

The link you provided also implies that YEC's deny certain facts of nature , however unintentionally, because they did not fit into their belief system, and that old earth creationists do not fall under this category. I think there are good arguments for both young and old earth creationism. My only suggestion is to read the evidence for YEC from a current YEC website and not old YEC evidence interpretation from an old earth creation website only.

I'm not advocating either sides here, I think we need to look at both evidences with the least amount of bias as possible. My personal conclusion from my 10 years of study in it is that I simply do not know.

Ok no problem. But just because the dates are old doesn't mean that the information is invalid now.. Try this website then for more rebuttals..

http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm

Cheers..

Yes it wasn't so much the date of the actual books but more the old arguments in those books being used to debunk YEC. Arguments already recommended by current YEC scientists not to use. I've had a quick 30min look at some of the articles in that new link you provided and while good it is still what I would call an Old Earth biased presuppositional website. All you are reading is an Old Earth interpretation of a Young Earth website. For example one of the articles I read on Carbon Dating admit that it is not the most accurate method of dating and that it has it's limitations. But it accuses the YEC scientist of having a 24hr day and a 6,000 year old universe bias and that they get that from the Bible. While this might be true for some I think the evidence should speak for itself without any use of the Bible but just God's creation. This is what the likes of Hugh Ross claim and rightly so. But what the article's author does not admit is the bias of millions of years that old earth creationists use. The Bible gives no indication of a long age either if you look at it with the same scrutiny that progressive creationist does with the young earth interpretation. Both parties should rely on the scientific evidence given and then see if it relates to the Bible, not the other way around.

This is where I think a lot of the conflict lies. I am happy for young earth creation scientists to share their data if it follows the scientific method and doesn't rely on their 24hr day interpretation of the Genesis record to prove the point. I am also happy to let old earth creation scientists share their data if it follows the same methods without relying on their 'billions of years' interpretation of the universe. Again let the evidence speak for itself.

Like you said God could have used any mechanism he wanted to create. Perhaps it wasn't anywhere near 6,000 years or 13.7 billion years ago? I just thank God this decision has nothing to do with my salvation.


-

[Gman]

I just thank God this decision has nothing to do with my salvation.

Excellent point Jad.. And I agree with you. In fact, actually much of what we discuss here (I believe) has little to do with science, (even among the Darwinian evolutionist believers with their science). It all gets down to the principles we hold on to or what we attribute to God or not, not science directly..

[Jad]

I just thank God this decision has nothing to do with my salvation.

Excellent point Jad.. And I agree with you. In fact, actually much of what we discuss here (I believe) has little to do with science, (even among the Darwinian evolutionist believers with their science). It all gets down to the principles we hold on to or what we attribute to God or not, not science directly..

Thanks Gman, you bring up some very valid points, arguments and questions as well. Once again I totally agree with you that ID and Darwinian evolution have little if nothing to do with science. I think the answer to the topic question is that ID is non-scientific because it does not meet the standard of scientific inquiry. Religious implications I think are somewhat irrelevant. You can apply alien implications to the ID method or even Richard Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. That's my take on it so far anyway.

[Gman]

Thanks Gman, you bring up some very valid points, arguments and questions as well. Once again I totally agree with you that ID and Darwinian evolution have little if nothing to do with science.

True, although I think they have something to do with science, but not the "final" answer. My belief is that it will never be accomplished (the study of origins) between the two camps. It will be the ying and the yang forever spinning into the abyss...

People that expound on their science here (on this forum), whether they believe in ID or DE are not really here for science's sake... Because we all know there are no definites when it comes to origins... What we really want to discuss here are our principles and what we hold dear on to as being moral.. At least this is what I believe.

I think the answer to the topic question is that ID is non-scientific because it does not meet the standard of scientific inquiry.

Well, I wouldn't make that call yet. ID is still in the baby stage and probably has the fundings from senior citizens in a Church bingo parlor.. Maybe in a few more years? Who knows... Will it ever have the "complete" answer? I would seriously doubt it..

Religious implications I think are somewhat irrelevant. You can apply alien implications to the ID method or even Richard Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. That's my take on it so far anyway.

Well... Maybe those SETI or Star Trek folks will get a hold of it and turn it into something someday.. Who knows...

[Jad]

Thanks Gman, you bring up some very valid points, arguments and questions as well. Once again I totally agree with you that ID and Darwinian evolution have little if nothing to do with science.

True, although I think they have something to do with science, but not the "final" answer. My belief is that it will never be accomplished (the study of origins) between the two camps. It will be the ying and the yang forever spinning into the abyss...

People that expound on their science here (on this forum), whether they believe in ID or DE are not really here for science's sake... Because we all know there are no definites when it comes to origins... What we really want to discuss here are our principles and what we hold dear on to as being moral.. At least this is what I believe.

I think the answer to the topic question is that ID is non-scientific because it does not meet the standard of scientific inquiry.

Well, I wouldn't make that call yet. ID is still in the baby stage and probably has the fundings from senior citizens in a Church bingo parlor.. Maybe in a few more years? Who knows... Will it ever have the "complete" answer? I would seriously doubt it..

Religious implications I think are somewhat irrelevant. You can apply alien implications to the ID method or even Richard Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. That's my take on it so far anyway.

Well... Maybe those SETI or Star Trek folks will get a hold of it and turn it into something someday.. Who knows...

Well I cannot see how macro-evolution can ever be shown working using the standard of scientific inquiry that we use today. It's been far too long a theory to hold on to and I think they should move on with other more plausible theories. I think the same criticism should also apply to Intelligent Design. There is no way to test this theory of design in the science lab. 'Intelligence' perhaps but not 'Design'; it's too subjective a word. The whole thing is really just a name change from creationism, which is what the judge in Dover concluded at the end of the trial. If you want to read the decision made by Judge John E. Jones you can download the PDF here. I Highly recommend all of you read it. It is a very interesting read and will give you a better insight into why the judge declared ID non-scientific.
It seems the more I read into ID the more I think no it's not just in it's first stages or taking it's first baby steps. I think it's gotten off on the wrong foot altogether. I don't think we as Christians should hold to it so tightly. My thoughts about it atm Gman would be about the same as your thoughts on YEC... Not that much.

I also think if Trekkers and the other alien believing folk get a hold of ID the whole movement will move to the same category as they already are... science fiction.


-

[godslanguage]

I don't think we as Christians should hold to it so tightly. My thoughts about it atm Gman would be about the same as your thoughts on YEC... Not that much.

For all I know Jad, you maybe a Darwinist or an atheist, a Christian in disguise (although I believe you are not). Alot of Darwinists feel they like to silence the ID proponents because "judge jones" ruled ID as unscientific, and it looks as though you are trying to do just that.

To me, a Christian debating with another Christian against the validity of ID brings up many suspicions. How about just accept the fact for now, that ID IS in its baby stages just as Gman suggested. Perhaps in the long-run, we shall see how scientific it is.

I don't see a good logical reason a Christian would NOT promote ID as a scientific theory since in scientific terms, it fits the evidence --- better-then other theories.

To say we as Christian's would say "its not that important", subsequently, you or whoever says this would equally mean that we have no objections to Darwinian theory, apart from using scripture as a counter-offensive. I just don't think the Christian should mind ID, it should mind the opponent. If you were in a battleground, would you mind your allies more then your opponent/enemy/ies?

Christians will not and cannot be silenced....sorry

[Jad]

I don't think we as Christians should hold to it so tightly. My thoughts about it atm Gman would be about the same as your thoughts on YEC... Not that much.

For all I know Jad, you maybe a Darwinist or an atheist, a Christian in disguise (although I believe you are not). Alot of Darwinists feel they like to silence the ID proponents because "judge jones" ruled ID as unscientific, and it looks as though you are trying to do just that.

To me, a Christian debating with another Christian against the validity of ID brings up many suspicions. How about just accept the fact for now, that ID IS in its baby stages just as Gman suggested. Perhaps in the long-run, we shall see how scientific it is.

Haha I see your point but in the case if ID I don't think my questioning of it raises any thoughts of Christians fighting with another Christians. I think me pointing out the splinter in your eye regarding the ID movement is biblically sound. If however I have an entire log in my eye regarding this subject then please I need to be told.
That's my take on all this anyway.

I don't see a good logical reason a Christian would NOT promote ID as a scientific theory since in scientific terms, it fits the evidence --- better-then other theories.

I disagree. I don't see a good logical reason FOR promoting it. What scientific evidence does it fit?

To say we as Christian's would say "its not that important", subsequently, you or whoever says this would equally mean that we have no objections to Darwinian theory, apart from using scripture as a counter-offensive.

I don't think that it isn't important. I simply don't think it is a part of our salvation to know the process He used to create. I can see the dangers that can and have been caused by the Darwinian mindset. It is important and I still have my objections to the theory because of that.

I just don't think the Christian should mind ID, it should mind the opponent. If you were in a battleground, would you mind your allies more then your opponent/enemy/ies?

I understand what you are saying but if I truly believed ID was faulty, with no logical reasoning, then I think the Christian should be informed, first and foremost so as not to be trampled on by the enemy when going into battle. I think the Christian SHOULD mind if that is the case. If a fellow Christian friend believed the earth was flat I should think I would have something to say about that.

Christians will not and cannot be silenced....sorry

Amen to that!


-

[Gman]

Well I cannot see how macro-evolution can ever be shown working using the standard of scientific inquiry that we use today. It's been far too long a theory to hold on to and I think they should move on with other more plausible theories. I think the same criticism should also apply to Intelligent Design. There is no way to test this theory of design in the science lab. 'Intelligence' perhaps but not 'Design'; it's too subjective a word. The whole thing is really just a name change from creationism, which is what the judge in Dover concluded at the end of the trial. If you want to read the decision made by Judge John E. Jones you can download the PDF here. I Highly recommend all of you read it. It is a very interesting read and will give you a better insight into why the judge declared ID non-scientific.
It seems the more I read into ID the more I think no it's not just in it's first stages or taking it's first baby steps. I think it's gotten off on the wrong foot altogether. I don't think we as Christians should hold to it so tightly. My thoughts about it atm Gman would be about the same as your thoughts on YEC... Not that much.

Thanks for the insight but I would side with godslanguage on ID also. Both camps have a long way to go, but to simply dismiss ID at this stage is... Well.. Too early... When DE first started, it had some complications too.

I also think if Trekkers and the other alien believing folk get a hold of ID the whole movement will move to the same category as they already are... science fiction.

DE will have to fall into this category then too... But it is still called "the true science" by mainline science today. Why? Because ID is considered a religious avenue and not scientific.

I don't see a good logical reason a Christian would NOT promote ID as a scientific theory since in scientific terms, it fits the evidence --- better-then other theories.

Me neither godslanguage.. If DE is hogging the spotlight, then we are forced to fight.

[Jad]

Thanks for the insight but I would side with godslanguage on ID also. Both camps have a long way to go, but to simply dismiss ID at this stage is... Well.. Too early... When DE first started, it had some complications too.

I don't see a good logical reason a Christian would NOT promote ID as a scientific theory since in scientific terms, it fits the evidence --- better-then other theories.

Me neither godslanguage.. If DE is hogging the spotlight, then we are forced to fight.

Well as I have asked godslanguage, what scientific evidence does ID fit? I want to be able to promote God but I still don't see a good logical reason for using ID in the science lab to do that. I'm just being honest. Now ID may be a valid cause and that's great I hope it is but so far I've put out a very simple argument in this thread against the analogies used FOR Intelligent Design and nobody has a logical and reasonable explanation for why my argument is faulty and also why ID should be allowed in the science lab. The flaw in the watchmaker analogy still remains. So at the very least should we not be using a different argument FOR ID rather than continuing to use 'watches imply watchmakers'?

Again let me make myself very clear, I would love to promote my God using ID, I really would. I would love to have someone debunk my argument so that I may join you in sharing the creator scientifically using ID. I already share my creator scientifically using the cosmological arguments so it's not like we as Christians are left with no leg to stand on without ID. But at the moment I believe there is a logically reasoned flaw that stops ID from going any further, scientifically. You can continue having hope in ID outside the science lab, that is fine. But we must address this issue first, scientifically, in order to continue scientifically. I think this is the honest thing to do if we want ID to enter the scientific arena.

I also think if Trekkers and the other alien believing folk get a hold of ID the whole movement will move to the same category as they already are... science fiction.

DE will have to fall into this category then too... But it is still called "the true science" by mainline science today. Why? Because ID is considered a religious avenue and not scientific.

Some areas of DE fall into this category and some do not. We have to be very specific in our terminology here so as not to confuse. Changes over time, we all agree with. This is a part of DE which nobody disputes. We all have a common ancestor? No. Micro-Evolution I believe is true science, Macro-Evolution however is as religious as ID is making it unscientific.

[godslanguage]

Jad, the watchmaker analogy fails because more specifically, ID does not worry about the watchmaker. It deals with observable evidence of biological systems and takes into account a hierarchical reality (I believe I have already stated this before at least 2 times on this thread).

I will once again, state what ID takes into account and why ID proponents consider it a scientific theory. DE defines a process of change, evolution is the study of such changes overtime. ID looks at the system "x" itself, it then would examine if "x" got to this current state "y" by purely "material" mechanisms (close attention to this word "material", it does not mean unnatural or exclude by-natural means), ID looks to do a series of "tests" for the amount of CSI inherent in system "x", if it passes the mathematical test it is regarded as-- qualified-- as a actually "designed" system rather then a system that "appears to be designed, but isn't really designed". Dawkins has said that system "x" only has the appearance of being designed, but isn't really designed". Now, what if Dawkins said: system "x" doesn't have the appearance of being designed and isn't really designed. The truth is, that Dawkins has no choice but to state the latter (it would only make Dawkins more foolish), he knows and every Darwinist knows that a very complex form of design exists. Dawkins and for that matter Dawinists only adds the "isn't really designed" because he/they is/are just (another) atheists who has nothing on his/they're mind/s except finding ways to complicate this issue further by adding unnecessary assumptions and complexities to the evolutionary paradigm. His/they're main objective in attempt to exclude design is to complicate everything enough with assumptions and philosophical claims as to divert or blur or mask out inherent design to material consequences.

[godslanguage]

The simple truth is, that IF most ID proponents weren't Christian or wasn't "God-did-it" in origins, it would be a scientific theory.
But we all know that Darwinists won't abandon they're mysticism for something far more realistic, so it is expectable to have most ID supporters to be Christian.
And the fact is, many aren't Christians, and many scientists believe ID because even though it has religious implications, it is far more sound then any Darwinian fairytale. The evidence will speak for itself.

[Jad]

Jad, the watchmaker analogy fails because more specifically, ID does not worry about the watchmaker. It deals with observable evidence of biological systems and takes into account a hierarchical reality (I believe I have already stated this before at least 2 times on this thread).

ID looks at the system "x" itself, it then would examine if "x" got to this current state "y" by purely "material" mechanisms (close attention to this word "material", it does not mean unnatural or exclude by-natural means), ID looks to do a series of "tests" for the amount of CSI inherent in system "x", if it passes the mathematical test it is regarded as-- qualified-- as a actually "designed" system rather then a system that "appears to be designed, but isn't really designed".

Designed to who? You are using the watchmaker analogy again. This is purely subjective. The observational evidence of biological systems looks like design only, even if it passes what a human mathematical test deems qualified. Also what if something didn't pass the test? Would that then be something not designed by a designer?
Mathematics is an abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory. We must not confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality (the natural sciences). A mathematical equation on it's own does not prove anything scientifically. It is basically logic (abstract realm) without reason (actual reality). You need both logic and reason in science. An example which I've used elsewhere on godandscience.org is that if you were to build a porch at the front of your house you would have to measure it up in order to cut the wood to the correct size. If you start with those measurements and then using mathematics worked out exactly how much wood you needed and what size to cut it all you would seemingly get a correct result. But this all depends on whether or not you got the measurements correct in the first place. The maths is logically sound as it always is but if the measurements (premise) are wrong you will get a wrong result.

Dawkins and for that matter Dawinists only adds the "isn't really designed" because he/they is/are just (another) atheists who has nothing on his/they're mind/s except finding ways to complicate this issue further by adding unnecessary assumptions and complexities to the evolutionary paradigm. His/they're main objective in attempt to exclude design is to complicate everything enough with assumptions and philosophical claims as to divert or blur or mask out inherent design to material consequences.

I don't think we should define all evolutionist thought to the likes of Dawkins and Darwin. Not all scientists are hell bent on atheism. In fact most real scientists do not think much of Dawkins at all. Richard Dawkins likes to convince the layman of atheism mostly but this has absolutely nothing to do with true science whatsoever. These same scientists I talk of don't sit around refuting ID either, they just look at the data in front of them and stick to their job for the most part. An atheist friend of mine was telling me about another friend of his, a biologist. They had known each other for years, went to school together and are still friends now. He came over to his house one day and just happened to glance over at a newspaper sitting on a table. He noticed an article in it about God and then casually asked his host "So what do you think of this God thing?". It was the first time he had ever had a conversation about God with this biologist. Why? Because it doesn't come up in his workplace. It's not the main issue. Was it God or was it Nothing? It's not a big topic of discussion for the average biologist.

The simple truth is, that IF most ID proponents weren't Christian or wasn't "God-did-it" in origins, it would be a scientific theory.

You said yourself the evidence will speak for itself. It matters not what the presupposition is, I'm not looking at that. It could be a group of alien abducted people claiming ID for all I care, it's the evidence on it's own I am looking at and I don't believe it meets the criteria for scientific study. Oh and I am most definitely not a Darwinist and I do not answer to the name Richard Dawkins.


-

[godslanguage]

ID is a direct counter to Darwinian evolution (based on materialistic causes), that is why I mentioned Dawkins and his atheist frenzy. Biologists are not all atheists and yes, bench scientists do look at data and interpret that data to mean something, and that is why I will be making a introduction to John A. Davison's theory on a separate thread. In fact, I have invited him here to this very forum, since John A. Davison is a supporter of ID (perhaps not aligned exactly with mainstream ID). Nevertheless his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) is far more sound scientifically and makes far more sense then any DE pseudo-science ever presented. Here is a link to an article by John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

ID doesn't need to state who the designer is, that is outside of science and ID recognizes this very well, the watchmaker analogy doesn't apply. By examining object "x" and determining that it fits "a" design inference, that is still within the boundaries of science. Please tell me how DE fits the definition of science, and on a scale of 1 to 10 how much hard-scientific evidence actually supports it. Then we may continue searching for flaws in ID. Unless you have better/other theories we can look at? I can imagine all those other choices on the menu.

As to the example you gave with the measurement formulas, ID is still in its early stages (in terms of mainstream ID), and I am sure Dr. Dembski 's formulas for calculating CSI still need fine tuning for the exact reason you suggested, the premise. Although it needs fine tuning, this doesn't necessarily mean there is no "reason" to the current logic in the formula.
At best, we can get a "range" of minimum or threshold value and maximum values, which is all more reasonable since formulas such as for example: probabilities for largely complex phenomena do not wish give off exact floating point values to the 6th decimal position, or more simply, precision is not that important in some cases. In other cases, more precise is extremely important, more -so in "application" oriented fields such as circuitry applications using ohm's law, for example.

[Jad]

ID is a direct counter to Darwinian evolution (based on materialistic causes), that is why I mentioned Dawkins and his atheist frenzy. Biologists are not all atheists and yes, bench scientists do look at data and interpret that data to mean something, and that is why I will be making a introduction to John A. Davison's theory on a separate thread. In fact, I have invited him here to this very forum, since John A. Davison is a supporter of ID (perhaps not aligned exactly with mainstream ID). Nevertheless his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) is far more sound scientifically and makes far more sense then any DE pseudo-science ever presented. Here is a link to an article by John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

Cool this looks really interesting. I'll stick it on my PPC and read it asap. It's not too deep scientifically for the laymen I hope?

ID doesn't need to state who the designer is, that is outside of science and ID recognizes this very well, the watchmaker analogy doesn't apply.

The watchmaker analogy doesn't state who the designer is either, it claims 'a' designer just like ID does. Who or what the designer might be is not what my issue is.

By examining object "x" and determining that it fits "a" design inference, that is still within the boundaries of science.

This is my issue right here.
Again I have to ask, "a" design to whom? It is entirely subjective. Lets say you saw a painting in a gallery that looked like it was designed by a painter. I could go to the same gallery and check out the exact same painting and conclude that it simply looked like somebody had knocked over a tin of paint on a nearby canvas that was lying around. They then put it in a frame and called it art. Design to you, not design to me. If the painting was a picture of a man's face it might look like design to both you and I but it only looks like design to you and I because we both know by previous experience what a man's face looks like. Is the man's face that we can see on planet Mars designed or a cause in nature? Does the elephant shape I saw in the clouds only look like an elephant shape because I know what elephant shapes look like from past experiences? Yes. It needs to be something objective rather than subjective if it is to stay within the boundaries of science, as you put it.

Please tell me how DE fits the definition of science, and on a scale of 1 to 10 how much hard-scientific evidence actually supports it. Then we may continue searching for flaws in ID. Unless you have better/other theories we can look at? I can imagine all those other choices on the menu.

There is always some form of truth in a lie, as there is also some form of truth in a misconception. I agree there are many things in DE that do not fit the definition of science. I wouldn't know on a scale of 1 to 10 to be honest with you. Evolution has become dominant in science regardless so for something like ID to enter the science lab, we have to get it right from the get go. The watchmaker analogy and your object "x" fitting "a" design inference does not meet the criteria for the scientific method so if ID is to continue we need a better argument. That is what I am in search of.
As far as other theories go I use the cosmological argument for the existence of a creator, or at the very least, an uncaused cause. I don't think we should limit God to ID theory and ID alone though. If it doesn't ever meet the criteria and you put all your eggs in that one basket what will you be left with? A conclusion of not God?

As to the example you gave with the measurement formulas, ID is still in its early stages (in terms of mainstream ID), and I am sure Dr. Dembski 's formulas for calculating CSI still need fine tuning for the exact reason you suggested, the premise. Although it needs fine tuning, this doesn't necessarily mean there is no "reason" to the current logic in the formula.
At best, we can get a "range" of minimum or threshold value and maximum values, which is all more reasonable since formulas such as for example: probabilities for largely complex phenomena do not wish give off exact floating point values to the 6th decimal position, or more simply, precision is not that important in some cases. In other cases, more precise is extremely important, more -so in "application" oriented fields such as circuitry applications using ohm's law, for example.

I think because of the DE dominance in the scientific circuit we are going to need something extremely accurate to break those walls down and let something like ID in. It will most likely need to be evidence that is pretty much undeniable on all counts.

Let me know when you put John A. Davison's theory on a separate thread.


-