Replies

If you have a well constructed model that produces the kinds of outcomes you are investigating, and if that model closely mimics naturally occurring behavior, then it's a pretty good candidate.

A candidate for what?

If you wish to compete in this arena, you need to produce a competing model that better mimics the natural phenomenon.

The alternate model is that some sort of intelligence played a role in the creation and/or development of life on Earth. That's the hypothesis. (Before we go around in a circle on this, please address the specific points I raised in my 1,000 nickels all heads up example -- specifically, if you came upon a pile of exactly 1,000 nickels all face up, would you assume the pile was natural or created? Please answer that question.)

The theory predicts that such an intelligence could leave traces in features of living organisms that cannot be explained away naturally. (Bnd before we go around in a circle on that point, consider the points I made about drawing distinctions between natural and created in many other fields of science.)

That they haven't found such evidence yet does not mean that ID is not science, any more than the fact that they haven't found traces of past or present life on Mars and aren't quite sure what to look for yet means that looking for life on Mars isn't science. Personally, I think it's wishful thinking and a waste of money but I wouldn't cliam that it's not a legitimate subject to investigate or that doing so isn't science.

Personally, I think it's wishful thinking and a waste of money but I wouldn't cliam that it's not a legitimate subject to investigate or that doing so isn't science.

Right! And let's not forget crystal healing, once I had the flu, and my sister dangled a healing crystal over me, and I was eventually cured! If that's not grist for the science mill, I don't know what is. I demand a warning label on all physics books, and a mere one hour of physics lecture time devoted to harnassing the powerful healing energy that ties healing crystals to the omega point energy grid. It's not like books at least as heavy as Behe's haven't been written about it. And let's not forget wikkan septagonal invocations--there has to be something to that, and the hollow and flat earth theories. You're such a parochial, narrow-minded IDist.

You can't derive history from structure. You can reasonably speculate that if you know the history of object A, and you find an object B that is very similar, then you know something about the history of B.

Interestingly, this is how Darwin derived the rules for natural selection. He spoke with large numbers of animal and plant breeders, noted the history of domesticated plants and animals, and speculated that the same rules of design and manufacture apply to all living things. The difference being that "wild" nature is a lot more wasteful and ruthless in pruning its populations.

"That they haven't found such evidence yet does not mean that ID is not science"

Hmm...perhaps not...but one doesn't normally find unsupported hypotheses discussed in primary and secondary school textbooks.

Here's my hypothesis:

The universe is supported on the back of an immense tortoise. You cannot see it because you are part of the universe and cannot see beyond its reaches.

Now, I'm going to begin lobbying for my theory of the universe to be placed in every textbook used in our public schools. You cannot demonstrate that my hypothesis is incorrect, and I claim that it is correct. I haven't found the actual evidence yet, but one thing's clear:

The Universe has to be held up by something. Anything that large must be supported. Tortoises are quite strong for their size, and are slow-moving. For that reason, an immense tortoise is statistically the most likely support for the universe.

Further, you may find evidence of the immense tortoise in ancient Hindu documents, which further prove my case.

If my theory of the immense tortoise does not appear forthwith in textbooks, I can think nothing else but that there is a bias against hinduism in our texts.

Now, I make no religious claim in my hypothesis. That would not be scientific, but can you come up with a better explanation for the support of the Universe.

I call my hypothesis the IT hypothesis and you may be sure you will be hearing more about it.