You keep saying that I need to show you this. Why? Frankly, I don't see what ID really changes other than the thesis that the research is trying to address and what people assume about the unkown.
OK, so let's see their applied science that flows specifically from the axiom "evolution, alone, is not sufficient to explain the life on earth."
Like I said, I don't really see what ID changes other than the type of evidence being looked for and the assumptions made about the unknown.
You asked the wrong question.
I'm asking the same question of you that you are asking of me. If you can't answer it, then why should I be expected to answer it? In fact, you made an assertion that evolution had practical applications in several specific areas and I asked you to explain your claims.
Can you show me a medical breakthrough that explicitly DID happen based on a theory of guided evolution, and would not have happened without it?
Why should I have to? If you can't point to a specific medical breakthrough that was the result of strict adherence to the theories of natural selection, then why should you expect me to do the same for guided evolution? And I'm still curious how evolution helps find oil, an assertion that you've made.
You are asserting that ID is a superior explanation of how life came to exist on Earth. All I'm saying is "OK, now prove the assertion."
I'm asserting that ID may be a superior explanation of how life came to exist on Earth. It's a theory. And that's why they are looking for evidence to support it. Further, I think it illustrates the reliance that evolutionists place on the unsupported assumption that anything they can't explain will ultimately be explainable through natural selection and evolution, at which point it shifts from science and the scientific method to orthodoxy and dogma. Evolutionists should be looking at all the same things that ID advocates are looking at in order to test their theory, which is why I'm so puzzled at the hostility toward ID.
"You keep saying that I need to show you this. Why?"
Because that is the measure, ultimately, of any scientific theory--its predictive value. If it does not have better predictive value than a competing theory, the competing theory wins.
Yes, it's survival of the fittest.
"I'm asserting that ID may be a superior explanation of how life came to exist on Earth."
I try to catch these as they fly by.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to exist on Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...It's a theory. And that's why they are looking for evidence to support it..."
ID is not a scientific theory. Hypothesis maybe, theory, no.
And you don't make up a theory or a hypothesis and look for evidence to bqack itup. You look at the dataand formulate the best theory you can to cover it all.
ID explains everything, I agree. What specifically, does it predict?
And what kind of evidence would that be? Specifically. And what assumptions? Can you name anything in the history of science where the assumption of supernatural or extranatural causes has been required? Can you name any problem currently under investigation that has reached a dead end in terms of assumptions or methodology?
I'm going to grant what I think is one benefit of ID. It has required mainstream science to tighten up its terminology, and is currently forcing popular publications to be more careful in their pronouncements. It might, in the long run, result in the demise of some of the crap known as deconstructionism. All these things are good.