No, and that is my point. Asking for a hypothesis, or scientific test to detect design is like asking for a hypothesis to detect the existence of planet Earth.
Depends on what you mean by "them."
By "them" I mean planet Earth and the universe. Nothing cryptic about it. If the earth and the universe were not designed, science would have no way of exploring it. Deal with it. Explain it away. Amuse the thinking man with your response. Besides, I'm sure you were there when it was all laid down and can explain the lack of an intelligent designer most intelligently yourself.
"Design" is a given under which science does take place. Science is "designed." It does not follow that life is "designed," or that the "design" of life should be assumed.
Why not? More people than scientists have figured as much, namely that where there is design, there is a designer. Not only so, but it has become increasingly apparent to many that life itself follows rules and patterns that are most easily attributed to design. Scientists who desire to push the notion that order and life can arise without the aid of an intelligent agent should pull their heads of the dark places where they are prone to looking and list themselves for hire in the philospohy and history segments of school cirricula.
It boggles the mind that evolutionists have the audacity to foist their philosophy upon science while demanding creationists supply hypotheses regarding the orderly nature of the world and the universe. If anything it is testimony to sheer laziness on the part of academia that evolutionism's ass wasn't kicked into the philosophy room a century ago or more. Somehow the NEA and its ilk must have gotten the better of us.
Of course, expecting as much out of someone who still believes 3000 year old creation myths is probably unreasonable.
FC: No, and that is my point. Asking for a hypothesis, or scientific test to detect design is like asking for a hypothesis to detect the existence of planet Earth.
Your point is nonsense. You propose "design" but can't test for it. It's as obvious, you say, as the earth. You propose design, which would require a designer. It's incumbent on you, therefore, to demonstrate that there is one.
In addition, the "designer" concept has no explanatory power at all. What would we expect to see if there were no designer?
Want a falsification of evolution: A fish giving birth to a horse. A pre-Cambrian rabbit. That's two. This has been pointed out to you many times on FR. It seems to me you simply ignore what you don't like reading.
G: Depends on what you mean by "them."
FC: By "them" I mean planet Earth and the universe. Nothing cryptic about it.
Just your sentence structure.
FC: If the earth and the universe were not designed, science would have no way of exploring it.
How do you arrive at this conclusion?
FC: Deal with it. Explain it away. Amuse the thinking man with your response. Besides, I'm sure you were there when it was all laid down and can explain the lack of an intelligent designer most intelligently yourself.
I'll be delighted to amuse the thinking man. Or even you. Science can only use and explain what it can test for and demonstrate. You keep wanting your unsupported assumption to govern science. It won't.
G: "Design" is a given under which science does take place. Science is "designed." It does not follow that life is "designed," or that the "design" of life should be assumed.
FC: Why not?
Because it's a non sequitur.
FC: More people than scientists have figured as much, namely that where there is design, there is a designer.
1) Figgerin' ain't science. 2) I believe that "more people than scientists have figured as much." That still doesn't make it science.
FC: Not only so, but it has become increasingly apparent to many that life itself follows rules and patterns that are most easily attributed to design.
"Many." That same "many" that have been flocking to creationism for the last hundred years?
FC: Scientists who desire to push the notion that order and life can arise without the aid of an intelligent agent should pull their heads of the dark places where they are prone to looking and list themselves for hire in the philospohy and history segments of school cirricula.
Science cannot include that for which it cannot test. Propose a falsifiable theory for intelligent design and it will be adopted.
FC: It boggles the mind that evolutionists have the audacity to foist their philosophy upon science while demanding creationists supply hypotheses regarding the orderly nature of the world and the universe.
You don't know what science is. You've demonstrated that beyond any doubt. Evolutionary theory fulfills the requirements of science. You need to deal with that. If it didn't it wouldn't be part of science at all. Oh, but wait! There's a Great Conspiracy afoot, perhaps a Great Science-Wing Conspiracy!
FC: If anything it is testimony to sheer laziness on the part of academia that evolutionism's ass wasn't kicked into the philosophy room a century ago or more. Somehow the NEA and its ilk must have gotten the better of us.
Judging from creationists' posts here, that's not much of an accomplishment.