Is ID science? Redux

Then why can’t you make a testable ID hypothesis?

We keep asking, you keep running.

No you are not.

There is no “ID null hypothesis”. To have a null hypothesis you have to have a prediction of the null hypothesis, something your ID hypothesis say should be a certain way, and then you can compare that prediction to observation.

But you don’t have that, you seem to not even understand what you are saying.

1 Like

Sigh. The same falsehood by Bill yet again. What humans can or cannot do has no bearing whatsoever on any “design” of life by a supernatural mind.

It’s anyone’s guess why Bill is in love with this false and logically fallacious claim.


Also Bill, this really doesn’t sit well with your hundred-fold repeated demand for models of all sorts of evolutionary transitions.

You seem to be willing to say basically anything that comes to mind, no matter how nonsensical, or hypocritical, or self-contradictory it is.

Have you really no shame? The end justifies the means?


Yep. ^^^^ This, in spades.

1 Like

Etc. etc.


Rum the key is testing not the model. String theory has a model but it is untested. Evolutionary theory has models and they do fine until you get to the cellular level and then they are difficult to test.

If there is no model or test then you don’t have a scientific claim and this is the problem with many evolutionary claims.

So where’s your design model?

1 Like

Ewert is developing a model. So is gpuccio.

So, sorry, exactly what is your hypothesis? So far as I can see, it amounts to “Things can be made by using one’s mind.” And the observation that supports this hypothesis is “Humans make things by using their mind.”

So is that really it? Do Meyer, Behe, Dembski et al think they deserve millions of dollars in donations just to demonstrate “Humans make things by using their mind”? Do they really think they are the first people to have realized this?


Thanks for admitting ID has no scientific claim. Can we please stop with your mindless regurgitation of discredited ID talking points now?

1 Like

No shit, Sherlock. Gee, I can’t wait til we see it. Maybe he can have a race with @pnelson to see if he can come out with his hypothesis before Paul comes out with Ontogenic Depth.


Where are their or your ID hypotheses and tests?

So let’s see if we’ve got this straight:

ID is a scientific idea, a really, really good one. Not like evolution, which is bad bad bad and has no models and lot of problems.

But ID has no models because it doesn’t need models.

And it has no hypotheses. After 20 years and millions of dollars of funding, hypotheses are still being worked on, but are not yet “ready for prime time.”

That about size up the situation, Bill?


Yeah but “your objections are arbitrary”.

Newton didn’t say that a mind keeps the planets in order. He showed instead that the order we can observe in the mouvement of the planets can be explained by the laws of gravity. On the other hand, where he thinks a mind has been at work is in the establishment of the initial conditions of the system.

1 Like

Standing corrected. It was a careless description on my part. This was not the point I was making however. The point was that the initial assumption was that the mind was the cause, but later gravity was found to be responsible.

1 Like

And as explained he was later shown to be wrong to think gravity could not explain the how the solar system could evolve to it’s present state.


Plus you’re making unwarranted assumptions, attacking a strawman, and committing a logical fallacy. :wink:

As far as ID bashing goes your the best :slight_smile: