“We're supposed to be discussing the concept of ID and whether it's scientific, and further, whether it will continue.”
“…I'd be interested in finding out why you think that introducing a concept that doesn't bother with using scientific concepts (except in the pejorative sense of "using"), will improve things.”
Intelligent design (pay careful attention to this) is a theory which involves trying to form a conclusion by just thinking about things. 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.
Intelligent design includes the laws of mathematics. It does not violate them—there, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary arguments seen in this thread.
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.
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.
Can you cite one paper where this is actually done?
You might check the original article, wherein a spokesman for the Templeton Foundation says that when they wanted to actually fund ID research, as opposed to debates, no one applied.
IDers claim one could detect design. However, no one ever tries it.
By the way, the process of speciation can be and is being examined by scientific methods.
Wrongo. Scientific theories arise frrm induction, not deduction. Science is speculative.
The difference between science and ID is not in the kind of reasoning involved in forming hypotheses, but in whether the hypotheses have consequenses that can be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.
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.
Stop right there. ID is not a theory because it is not a testable body of evidence. It does not rise to the level of a theory, it is a mere hypothesis. Period