[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I see that you start with the same premise as that which IDers decry. Try this on for size, if you can't logically explain your position using deduction, induction and Occam's razor to the common layman, either your position is faulty or you don't understand your subject well enough.

Now I will be the first to agree that logic is not the be all and end all of science. There is more to science than that. But illogic has no place in scientific thinking.

Therefore, I ask you to *logically* explain your position about ID without resorting to argumentum ad hominum or question begging premises (circular logic). Any assumptions will, of course, have to be logically shown to be valid for the purposes of this discussion.

Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard. IOW, if a point is made using either of these arguments it is to be assumed that logic is being sidestepped, therefore the point is invalid.

A word to the wise. Be very careful about relying overmuch on "scientific evidence." Scientists seem to be wrong more often than not. As an example, I give you the evidence on climate change, which has flip-flopped at least four times in the last century - each time, the consensus of scientific opinion was absolutely certain they were correct.

Remember, this not a full-blown scientific enquiry, only an exercise in logic. The main purpose for suggesting this logical exercise is to let both sides see the logical strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. This is not designed to get people to change their minds (since it obviously won't do that), but it will force people to give reasonable apologia for their positions (something I wish our politicians would do).

For those who don't understand the logical rules I have stated, deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday), induction is drawing reasonable conclusions with a high probability of accuracy without knowing absolutely for sure from the given facts (if a dog inside a house doesn't bark during a burglary, then it is reasonable to assume an inside job. However, there are burglars who have a way with animals, such that dogs won't bark at them. So while the odds are that it is an inside job, it is not conclusively so) and Occam's razor basically states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the answer you are looking for.

So, using the tools of deduction, induction and Occam's razor, en evant mes enfants. Let the games begin.

[Socratic]

...deduction is something you can absolutely show is true from the available facts (e.g. if a girl was 14 in January of 2006, then in June of 2007, it can be shown conclusively that she had passed her 15th birthday)...

But what is called a fact today might not be a fact tomorrow. Suppose the girl's birthday was February 29th? I don't think 2006 was a leap year, so the day of her birth did not even occur that year. Did the Earth revolve more than once around the Sun during the specified interval? Yes. But what exactly is meant by the concept of "birthday?" I see no absolute truth in the facts presented.

[Coyoteman]

Therefore, I ask you to *logically* explain your position about ID without resorting to argumentum ad hominum or question begging premises (circular logic). Any assumptions will, of course, have to be logically shown to be valid for the purposes of this discussion.

Fair enough.

ID (intelligent design) is a religious concept that was prevalent in earlier centuries. I think the last major promotion was about 1801 (William Paley's 1801 "Argument from Design").

Thereafter, scientific arguments increasingly showed that religious belief and divine revelation failed to account for observations of the natural world. By about February 18, 1831, the last major creationist (flood) geologist capitulated.

Thereafter ID took a back seat for many years. Then, with creationism being tossed from schools, creation "science" was born. But soon the Edwards decision by the US Supreme Court in the late 1980s tossed that out. So, ID was dusted off in an attempt to pass religious belief off as science (see the Wedge Strategy for the sordid details).

The Wedge Strategy was "designed" by the Dyscovery Institute to promote ID as scienc, but their internal fund-raising document leaked--whoops!

But they went ahead with the plot anyway. Currently, at the Dyscovery Institute, ID is being pushed not by scientists but by lawyers, English majors, and an occasional journalist -- PR flacks all; see their blogs for the sorry details.

And you think that ID is a reasonable substitute for science?

A word to the wise. Be very careful about relying overmuch on "scientific evidence." Scientists seem to be wrong more often than not. As an example, I give you the evidence on climate change, which has flip-flopped at least four times in the last century - each time, the consensus of scientific opinion was absolutely certain they were correct.

Scientists are not "wrong more often than not." Scientists are increasingly more accurate in their descriptions of the natural world.

The current global warming hysteria is not good science, and will shortly be sent to the ash-heap of scientific history. It is not that the earth is not warming -- that has been a fact since the end of the last ice age (with quite a few variations in between). Rather, the idea that the earth is warming because of SUVs and other man-made causes is politics, not science. Check the scientific websites and you will see that real science is starting to catch up with political science.

But this has nothing to do with ID vs. the theory of evolution. ID is religious belief repackaged in order to try and sneak back into the schools. But a federal court decision (Kitzmiller), after examining the testimony and evidence, determined that ID is creationism warmed over.

If you want to promote ID, or any other religious belief, you need to bring scientific evidence.

[js1138]

Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard.

Many discoveries have been made since 1859 that could have made evolution and common descent an untenable theory. Among them are at least 50 independent methods of determining the age of objects; millions of fossils, any of which found embedded in the wrong strata would pose serious problems, ERVs, which have been entirely consistent with common descent; thirty years or more of laboratory research searching for "forward looking" mutations, or mutations that respond to need.

To the best of my knowledge, the only explicit testable proposal put forward in support of ID is Behe's "limit" of adaptive change requiring two mutations before either is beneficial. He appears not to have searched the literature before making this proposal.