Entirely unencumbered by the need to meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
The approach of intelligent design is to analyze phenomena, through the use of logic and math, in order to reach a conclusion. The a priori approach. Not appropriate for public education? It’s what Einstein did. Remember, Einstein’s ideas were not verified immediately and were highly controversial.
Einstein never felt the need to have a school board change the rules of science so his theory could be taught to high school students. He proposed a scientific theory, offered potential disproof (kindly enlighten us as to the potential disproof for ID), and then, when partial vindication for his theory was presented, held out for additional support. That's how science is done. Thanks for reminding us about Einstein.
Intelligent design includes the laws of mathematics. It does not violate them—there, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary arguments seen in this thread.
ID uses mathematics in the absence of all the known factors, so the math is junk, too. As I've posted before, ID pretends to be able to tell us the odds of rolling a six in an unknown number of passes, with an unknown number of dice, each having an unknown number of sides. Go ahead and show us how you'd calculate the odds under those conditions.
Moving along. Known facts of chemistry, biology and physics arise from deductive logic, starting with observations and measurements of particular phenomena, in a way that can be tested by science. The theory of evolution, specifically speciation as posted by Cicero above, does not. For the sake of an accurate understanding, please devote time and careful attention to grasping this fact.
When did Cicero's post become the "official" version of the Theory of Evolution? We here at Darwin Central must have missed the memo.
We are all susceptible to various forms of weakness. That includes moments (brief we hope) of intellectual confusion like that suffered by those who have missed the fact that the theory of evolution demands a glaring leap of faith.
No faith at all. It is the theory that best explains all the known evidence. If you think it's based on faith, you're not paying attention.
This is similar to the Drake equation which attempts to determine the probability of intelligent life in the universe.
The difference between Drake and ID is that the parameters of the Drake equation are being filled in by research.
“Einstein never felt the need to have a school board change the rules of science so his theory could be taught to high school students. He proposed a scientific theory, offered potential disproof (kindly enlighten us as to the potential disproof for ID), and then, when partial vindication for his theory was presented, held out for additional support. That's how science is done. Thanks for reminding us about Einstein.”
You’re welcome. So we shall limit all formal presentation of scholarly thinking by requiring that it be accompanied by an example of disproof. Einstein is not great because of the disproof he offered, but because of his courageous use of imagination to forge new paths in human thought.
“No faith at all. It is the theory that best explains all the known evidence. If you think it's based on faith, you're not paying attention.”
We can observe the replication of DNA in a test tube. We cannot duplicate the hypothesized process of the formation of species, so our acceptance of speciation as fact is a leap of faith.
“ID uses mathematics in the absence of all the known factors, so the math is junk, too. As I've posted before, ID pretends to be able to tell us the odds of rolling a six in an unknown number of passes, with an unknown number of dice, each having an unknown number of sides. Go ahead and show us how you'd calculate the odds under those conditions.”
You have shown no example of any violation of mathematical principles by proponents of ID.