[Fester Chugabrew]

My problem with high-school textbooks is not that they omit to discuss the scientific method; it's that the scientific method they claim exists is in many cases a fiction.

It would be interesting to see what various high school textbooks propose for both a definition of science and scientific method. Against those definitions I would like to test the contention of some that "it is not science unless it is based upon proven facts." I've always thought it to be the part of science to explore reality on the basis of reasonable guesses and thereby arrive at the facts.

I would contend that both intelligence and design are quantifiable to a degree. Also that the manner and degree to which they manifest themselves is highly dependent upon the observer. But I know you will not receive these on face value.

My vocation (parts and service representative) makes it difficult to plot out in writing a detailed thesis on the subject, but I do hope to propose a series of definitions and questions to assist in a better understanding between us.

[js1138]

Intelligence is perfectly quantifiable, provided you accept the point that you cannot define it in terms other than the method used to test it.

I am quit willing to listen to anyone's attempt to define design in an objective way. We can, of course, refer to the history of the object if we know it. But that's not what you are arguing for

You want to be able to look at something and assert it couldn't have come into existence without being manufactured. This has been tried by citing "irreducibly complex" biological structures. This is a position that will forever be in retreat. We might even call it the French position, because it is always surrendering ground.

That's a good thought. ID is the French theory.