Replies

"ID is a viable, meanngful and perfectly legitimate approach to understanding nature. If you dig below the surface of any significant research on evolutionary theory you will very quickly be confronted with speculation about the underlying forces determinative of evolution. ID is nothing more than an attempt to get at some of the important questions about natural life processes."

Then I assume you will have no trouble presenting a scientific hypothesis of ID. Please do so. Since the ID community has yet to accomplish this, I wager neither will you.

Just saying ID "a viable, meanngful and perfectly legitimate approach to understanding nature" does not make it so. Provide the hypothesis, as a starting point to back that assertion up. But since Behe et. all have been unable to do so IN COURT all this month, I bet you have nothing. However, if you can't provide it, than what you said above is false.

I have dug way below the surface of the research on evolution. And yes it does contain speculation on the forces at play. That's why it is science. Science is an attmept to speculate based ont he data at hand, and then verify that speciulation through prediction and or experimentation. ID is an attempt to willingly forgo such speculation, and simply say, as you put it "DUH it's ID."

Produce a scientific hypothesis please. There is none.

Again, saying I am insulting you does not make it so. "Simply more of the same put downs and condescension..." I am not putting you down. I may by a bit condescinding, but since you have yet to produce an argument of real substance, or address my substantive comment on your posts, I feel my condescension is warranted.

For example, when I said that evolution was not a collection of debunked attacks, you could have challenged that. That was substance, and you could have mounted a substantive challenge. You chose not to. That Ipresent substance and you ignore it, might be called by some "lying". I'm not calling you a liar. I don't have to, I'll leave the emptiness of your posts to speak for poster's intent.

The difference between my contempt and yours, is that I am providing an actual argument, and asking you to address it. You have not, and continue to not do so.

If you can't counter the argument, then I have no choice but to assume you agree. That is not condescension, that's basic logic.

Lets hear your hypothesis.

Please...

My hypothesis, although I have the distinct imnpression I am casting pearls before the swine...
Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated. If this, or some version of this, is true then there must be some principle that allows it to be so. Otherwise it could be as easily said that the simple leads to the complex which leads to the simple, ie random change.
Why is it that the notion of higher and lower orders is predicated? On what basis is this apparent natural phenomenon determined? This is an area of research that has gone unexamined.
I propose that it be examined to determine laws of nature which seem to impose order on existence. Why should there be order? Why not rampant disorder?
If order, then, and more so, if processional - lower to higher - order there must be determinative dynamics that make it so. What is the nature of these dynamics?
This line of reasoning from natural observation must necessarily discard random selection or random processes as not capable of explaining phenomenon.
If I may jump to a possible conclusion, ID is a perfectly legitimate proposition to explain the phenomenological issues raised above.