(January 2, 2017 at 2:47 pm)robvalue Wrote: Science is essentially about learning something. We gather information, we hypothesise, we test, we improve, and ultimately we seek to show we've understood how something works.
ID doesn't do any of this. It doesn't demonstrate that we've learned anything at all. It has no way of showing it. There are no mechanisms. No models. No predictions. No results. No tests. It's not science. It's pseudo-science, which it will always be, because it's bullshit.
Either you care about the scientific method, or you don't. And if you don't, you've got a hell of a case to make as to why anyone should take you seriously.
I care very deeply about the scientific method. That's one reason that I started this post. I wanted to get people's opinions on if they think people hiding under the mask of science (which is something I'm not trying to do) are corrupting the most valuable process for unraveling truth.
ID does demonstrate what we've learned. It is based mainly on our knowledge of biological systems and finely tuned laws of physics. Actual mechanisms are something that no origin of life theory can produce. Possible mechanisms are the best we will ever get, and I believe that ID stands alone. After all, intelligent input has been the only way we have ever gotten RNA and DNA sequences to do what we want. There are predictions. ID proponents predicted functional DNA while others predicted junk. ID proponents consistently predict that biological processes are highly specific and not based in randomness, and this is consistently being shown to be correct. There are tests. There are ID inspired scientists working to address scientifically relevant questions. If nothing else, it increases the thought diversity among researchers, which is something science cannot survive without.
