Replies

Borges: Scientific principals aren't decided by plebiscite.
Absolutely correct.

Borges: They are what they are based on what can be demonstrated by evidence.
Also absolutely correct.

Borges: ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested
Not true. The concept of ID is that there is a way to objectively measure and test for "design." If more scientists would spend time working this concept or at least allowing it to be pursued, the issue would be more properly resolved.

Borges: nor has it led to any other scientific discoveries.
Whether something has led to other discoveries is not of significance in whether it can be studied scientifically or not.

shuckmaster: designed things are built as simply and efficiently as possible to still be functional while there's no limits to the complications of evolutionary biology.
Almost certainly true. This is the proper way to attack ID as an explanation for biological evolution. I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.

shuckmaster: The charlatans who promote this ineducable complexity BS are selling books to the most ignorant anti-science sentiment of the uneducated masses.
This attitude only helps to promote ID by showing its adherents that they are not being listened to. Some acknowledgment of legitimacy for the investigation is necessary to make the point above. Science is not advanced by calling others fools and refusing to pay attention to possibilities.

The concept of ID is that there is a way to objectively measure and test for "design." If more scientists would spend time working this concept or at least allowing it to be pursued, the issue would be more properly resolved.

So there's no proof one exists, and in fact many of us believe it's impossible, but you want us to work on it anyway?

I have no problem with anyone pursuing it, on their own time.

I believe that a true study of designed vs. undesigned objects would show that simplicity is an aspect of design and that unnecessary complexity is an aspect of evolved objects.

Then I presume it's settled that we're the result of evolution, because the human genome has the biggest collection of garbage you've ever seen.

"Whether something has led to other discoveries is not of significance in whether it can be studied scientifically or not."

Sorry, but precisely that is the main error in the ID concept. For a scientific theory there must be at least one prediction you can test.

IC?
Sorry again. Imagine yourself standing on an ice block used as a bridge over ditch. It's summer time and so the ice is melting. You probably know what is going to happen? At some time the ice will break. But what did we have just the very moment before that happened? Before the very last crystal melts keeping the bridge alive? The bridge was irreducible complex. Well, someone may mention, that another crystal may melt. OK, let all crystals melt till that point, that independent on what is next crystal going to melt the bridge will break.

1. Do you need an intelligent designer to build such a bridge? No, just try and error, but you still don't know if this solution is the only one.

2. The aim. What was the use of the ice block? Was it the aim of block to be a bridge. Because without an aim you can't define what is the use of something. Maybe the ice was just for cooling the water in the ditch. So without an designer with an aim you can't have any kind of IC!

IC is a circular reference to ID.