Oh my conscience... it pains me so much to be a philosopher... please stop the pain...hahaha. Oh Fester... you are too funny my friend.
You are correct about one thing, I have no scientific fact to establish or confute ID. But I disagree with the next statement though and I will say "one more time". ID is unscientific because it is not based on any evidence. There is no physical evidence, no mathematical models, not even a tag that says "inspected by #13". Why.. you even say so yourself. Soooo pleeeeaaaase don't tell me that the desire for evidence in science is philosophical. I did not make the "scientific method" nor did I make any of the models of scientific inquiry. Please, if you want to continue to argue this go grab a Ouija board and wake up Aristotle.
This Meyer guy seems to say as well it is inaccurate to describe ID as predominantly "faith-based" or religious. So he happens to agree with me, not you.
Fester just how forgetful do you think I am? I am fortunate so far not to suffer from a degenerative disease of the brain yet so don't treat me like I do. Now what was it I said Meyers disagreed with you about? Oh yeah... you said "there are no proponents of ID" and Meyer said he is a "founding father" of it (and the article was pushing it... hence he is a proponent). THAT is why I said he disagreed with you. Good golly Ms Molly what am I going to do with you?
And no, it is not a point of philosophy to ask for evidence in support of a theory. It is part and parcel of science.
YES! Ok Fester you da man! Atta boy I am glad I never ever have to say that again to you. I was sounding like a mina bird. "No evidence... not scientific.... Squawwwk!"
Organized matter performing specific functions is decent evidence for intelligent design, but not conclusive.
Quantify "decent" for me. Also... what is the "Intelligent Designer" made of? If the Big ID'er is also made of "organized matter" what does that tell US? That there was an Intelligent Designer of the Intelligent Designer... and that of course begs the same question... over and over ad infinitum. Hey it is your theory... you gotta have some idea about this right?
The intelligible universe is replete with examples of the same, so it is not necessarily a supernatural, supersitious, or religious point of view to generally understand an intelligible universe to be a product of intelligent design; no more so than generally assuming each book or play has an author.
At best my friend, it is an assumption right? And by your own words there is no proof for it, just an assumption. YOUR problem is there are many other interpretations we can make and say are equally valid because... we have no evidence for them either. Does that mean we teach all of those other wonderful ideas as well and put them on par with Evolution?
On a very serious note my friend, do you know how many different beliefs are out there that are just "hoping" that the door is open for them to proselytize in the public school? I don't mean any that are Christian based either... I am talking about well funded "cults".
The one that really comes to mind my friend is Scientology. You know, the cult with members such as Tom Cruise, Greta Van Susteren, John Travolta, the voice of Bart Simpson. Now many people on FR think that Scientology is "nothing to be concerned about" but I have had first hand experience with them and let me tell you, they are more aggressive than anything you can imagine. I worked as a volunteer for the Red Cross during Katrina and Rita and they were exceptionally active in converting the people in the shelter (both victims and volunteers). Now Red Cross shelters don't allow that kind of behavior, unless of course the facility the shelter is located at is ran by the Mayor of a certain Louisiana city (no not Nagin).
So if you want to push ID into public schools and get it accepted as science you should know that there are other groups just foaming at the mouth for you to succeed because if you get your foot in the door, they can get theirs in as well. It is a Pandora's box my friend ... and I really hope we don't open it.
That is precisely why I said your arguments against ID are not scientific but philosophical.
But ID is based upon evidence, namely the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. If it is only "evidence" that constitutes scientific thought, then ID is scientific to the core. Or perhaps you are another one of those folks who conflates or equates "evidence" with "proof."
I did not make the "scientific method" . . .
Neither did I cause the particle elements to retain their consistency so as to produce cause and effect or the various specific functions they exhibit. And as for this Meyer guy, he does not seem to put these processes into the realm of "supernatural" like you do.
. . .If the Big ID'er is also made of "organized matter". . .
So what? One could expect as much. But you cannot resist waxing philosophical, can you? Good on you for breaking out of your cold, hard science shell.
At best my friend, it is an assumption right?
That's right. And at bottom that is all you have to start with, too. My assumption is that the universe is intelligently designed because it is intelligible. As a result I am capable of observing, quantifying, and in a small way, explaining how this intelligently designed universe works. What is your assumption?