You’re basically describing a God Of The Gaps scenario. Everything we find a natural cause for is not ID, anything we don’t know for sure is claimed to be ID. Correct, it has nothing to do with science.
2 Likes
This is true but so what? The scientific method does not require a model. It requires a hypothesis and a test. Rum, your objections are arbitrary.
Because science is pretty ruthless when it comes to weeding out frauds and charlatans pushing pseudo-science which is all the ID-Creationism movement is.
1 Like
What is ID’s hypothesis and test Bill? People have been asking you for years yet you always vanish with no answer.
1 Like
I don’t think that everyone is trying to kill the theory, and I don’t think it is arbitrary. If a cause cannot be shown to exist except by the fact that it has not been falsified, what has been shown? The Newton example seems to be a good one. A mind keeps the planets in order. Until a natural cause has been determined. I’m not seeing how ID is different. If the operational definition is that “a mind may be a better explanation” then how is it different than motion of the planets?
1 Like
So everything I just wrong, all over again.
Scientific models ARE hypotheses Bill.
And you have NEITHER. It is not a prediction of any model of ID that “a natural process can’t make X”.
Your model is supposed to explain how X occurs with some mechanism in a way that is testable. “A mind can make X” does not predict that “a natural process can’t”.
You keep using that turn of phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.
1 Like
Design can be used in the same way random is used with the null hypothesis. The problems in evolutionary science is massive because it is filled with untested assumptions. Thousands of papers use these assumptions as a given and make their case. Random is not a good test for evolutionary biology to compare against.
Winston Ewert is developing a model for the design hypothesis however it is not yet ready for prime time. It is based on how human designers design software.
No it can’t Bill, as has been explained to you a gazillion times.
Are you going to run from this claim of yours yet again?
1 Like
But isn’t intelligent design an untested assumption? If so, it would also be problematic, right?
1 Like
REALLY? Then what is the design distribution? It’s not random, but then what is it?
1 Like
No Rum their models. I will keep this short because your argument falls on this false claim. You can easily make a hypothesis without a model.
No Bill models ARE hypotheses. A model of the weather for example can be used to predict the weather. That is then a hypothesis of how the weather is predicted to develop, which you can then compare to observations of the real weather.
Bill, you really don’t seem to understand what you’re talking about. Again.
I will go on at length about why it does not.
You seem unable to make either for ID.
2 Likes
It is tested. As I mentioned above humans validate it all the time. In the case I am making it is used as a type of null. The objective being to falsify it.
What is not tested is universal common descent by natural mechanisms.
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.
2 Likes
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?
5 Likes
Yep. ^^^^ This, in spades.
1 Like
Etc. etc.
5 Likes
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.