Is ID science? Redux

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:

I don’t see any bashing, just accurate descriptions of the vacuousness of ID. I note that you aren’t disagreeing with them.


You are all bashing John with the exception of Michael Callahan who is actually discussing. Get real.

Ah, sorry. I could have sworn you have written that ID does not use models, and that it is working on hypotheses but these are not yet ready for “prime time.”

So, since I was mistaken about that, could you now share the models and hypotheses that ID researchers are testing?

1 Like

Do you think the above statement is inviting me into a meaningful conversation? You don’t like ID for ideological reasons I get it. If you are interested in it why don’t you read up on it. Start here.

Yes. It is a request that anyone defending a particular scientific idea would and should be able to answer. Obviously, a response to such a request would be a meaningful exchange.

I’ve done my part of the bargain. Now it’s your turn.

I just posted a model. Please read the paper first and show you have at least minimal understanding of the model and what it is trying to show.

We’ve already gone over it, remember? It’s crap.

Anyway, isn’t that the guy whose model you said wasn’t “ready for prime time”? But it’s ready for the ID “journal”, evidently.

Anyway, you’ve now admitted that a scientific idea can and should have models, contrary to what you were saying all along. And ID has no models. Fancy that.

1 Like