Lack of Empirical, Hypothesis-Driven Productivity in ID

[Timothy_Horton]

@pnelson

Biology as a science should be free to pursue design hypotheses, should the evidence warrant them. Such hypotheses must say something that standard theory does not and should be testable by others who do not share the design presupposition, but who want to see if the hypothesis works.

Then what’s stopping you? Right now IDists (most notably the DI) spend virtually 100% of their time and money attacking existing evolutionary theory instead of testing their own hypotheses. That also direct their attacks on existing science not to other scientists but towards the lay public. If ID is a legitimate scientific field why does ID produce nothing but political propaganda aimed at public opinion?

@pnelson

We should note that plenty of sciences, other than biology, entertain design (intelligent causation) hypotheses. Remote sensing, archaeology, SETI, cryptanalysis, and so on.

None of those posit supernatural intervention to produce real world observable phenomena. Please don’t insult us with the standard dodge “ID is about the Design, not the Designer” bullcrap. In every field of investigation identifying the Designer is one of the top priorities.