'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Glod wrote:
Many

are tired of the scientist's ascription to themselves of a special
status of secular priests who promulgate a doctrine of philosophical
materialism.

Here is my standard response to all the nutters who blither to me about
"science is atheistic and unfairly rules out the supernatural". Let's
see if you can do any better with it than any other IDer ever has:


The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps.
They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations
and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any
"supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to
invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils,
djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or
all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to
that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been
proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural
causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such
"non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP,
telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim
that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out
of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or
non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to
steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID
hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One
claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity
between humans and chimps by asserting that God - uh, I mean, An
Unknown Intelligent Designer - created both but used common features
in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers,
including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome
that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the
appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a
common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C
gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine.
What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent
Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then
we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to
point out some negative predictions - things which, if found, would
FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis
is wrong. So, then - if we find (fill in the blank here), then the
"common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their
voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY
testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified
through experiment.

Take note here - contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair
exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits
imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions,
other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever
predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further
observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural
causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow
along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or
causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that
the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP
these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"-
just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test
that. Want to tell us that God - er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent
Designer - didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided
to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€"
just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can
perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the
supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or
observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science
is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's
therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the
window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits,
demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats,
whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of
them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show
us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic
science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis
"genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a
common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID
hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any
presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science
that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID
"theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them
invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design
"theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining
about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic
explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed
"supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the
scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only
can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify
science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their
supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position
â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT
being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific
method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply
take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so,
that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire
argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism"
or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they
want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged
and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other
hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they
are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that
everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If
they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific
method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be
"science". Period.


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

That is a nifty essay. Well done!

The ID folk cannot abide reasonable and rational skepticism (which is
just another name for careful thinking). They want the gift of faith
bestowed upon them unearned.

I am of the old school. I accept theories that coherent, fairly general
and above all supported by experimental test. I guess I am of the
Empricist Faith. My God is logic, facts and measurements.

That is a nifty essay. Well done!

On 6 Dec 2005 03:58:29 -0800, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net>
wrote:

Glod wrote:
Many

are tired of the scientist's ascription to themselves of a special
status of secular priests who promulgate a doctrine of philosophical
materialism.

Here is my standard response to all the nutters who blither to me about
"science is atheistic and unfairly rules out the supernatural". Let's
see if you can do any better with it than any other IDer ever has:


The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps.
They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations
and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any
"supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to
invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils,
djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or
all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to
that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been
proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural
causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such
"non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP,
telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim
that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out
of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or
non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to
steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID
hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One
claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity
between humans and chimps by asserting that God - uh, I mean, An
Unknown Intelligent Designer - created both but used common features
in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers,
including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome
that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the
appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a
common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C
gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine.
What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent
Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then
we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to
point out some negative predictions - things which, if found, would
FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis
is wrong. So, then - if we find (fill in the blank here), then the
"common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their
voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY
testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified
through experiment.

Take note here - contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair
exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits
imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions,
other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever
predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further
observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural
causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow
along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or
causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that
the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP
these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â?"-
just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test
that. Want to tell us that God - er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent
Designer - didnâ?Tt like humans very much and therefore decided
to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â?"
just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can
perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the
supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or
observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science
is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's
therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the
window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits,
demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats,
whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of
them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show
us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic
science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis
"genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a
common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID
hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any
presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science
that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID
"theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them
invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design
"theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining
about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic
explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed
"supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the
scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only
can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify
science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their
supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position
â?"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT
being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific
method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply
take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so,
that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire
argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism"
or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they
want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged
and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other
hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they
are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that
everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If
they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific
method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be
"science". Period.

You're rather off-topic here. We were discussing scientists' mistaken
belief that they have some special standing which allows them to
determine content of public school science curricula. In their
arrogance they have forgotten that they function in strictly an
advisory capacity. It is the community which has, or should have,
authority to determine what their children will be taught.

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

On 6 Dec 2005 03:58:29 -0800, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net>
wrote:

Glod wrote:
Many

are tired of the scientist's ascription to themselves of a special
status of secular priests who promulgate a doctrine of philosophical
materialism.

Here is my standard response to all the nutters who blither to me about
"science is atheistic and unfairly rules out the supernatural". Let's
see if you can do any better with it than any other IDer ever has:


The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps.
They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations
and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any
"supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to
invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils,
djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or
all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to
that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been
proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural
causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such
"non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP,
telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim
that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out
of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or
non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to
steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID
hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One
claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity
between humans and chimps by asserting that God - uh, I mean, An
Unknown Intelligent Designer - created both but used common features
in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers,
including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome
that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the
appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a
common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C
gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine.
What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent
Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then
we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to
point out some negative predictions - things which, if found, would
FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis
is wrong. So, then - if we find (fill in the blank here), then the
"common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their
voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY
testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified
through experiment.

Take note here - contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair
exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits
imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions,
other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever
predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further
observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural
causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow
along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or
causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that
the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP
these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"-
just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test
that. Want to tell us that God - er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent
Designer - didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided
to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€"
just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can
perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the
supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or
observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science
is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's
therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the
window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits,
demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats,
whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of
them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show
us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic
science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis
"genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a
common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID
hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any
presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science
that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID
"theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them
invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design
"theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining
about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic
explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed
"supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the
scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only
can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify
science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their
supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position
â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT
being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific
method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply
take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so,
that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire
argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism"
or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they
want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged
and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other
hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they
are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that
everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If
they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific
method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be
"science". Period.

You're rather off-topic here.

belief that they have some special standing which allows them to
determine content of public school science curricula.

arrogance they have forgotten that they function in strictly an
advisory capacity. It is the community which has, or should have,
authority to determine what their children will be taught.

On 6 Dec 2005 03:58:29 -0800, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net>
wrote:

Glod wrote:
Many

are tired of the scientist's ascription to themselves of a special
status of secular priests who promulgate a doctrine of philosophical
materialism.

Here is my standard response to all the nutters who blither to me about
"science is atheistic and unfairly rules out the supernatural". Let's
see if you can do any better with it than any other IDer ever has:


The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps.
They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations
and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any
"supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to
invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils,
djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or
all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to
that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been
proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural
causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such
"non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP,
telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim
that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out
of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or
non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to
steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID
hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One
claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity
between humans and chimps by asserting that God - uh, I mean, An
Unknown Intelligent Designer - created both but used common features
in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers,
including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome
that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the
appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is
consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a
common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design
included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C
gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine.
What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent
Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then
we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to
point out some negative predictions - things which, if found, would
FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis
is wrong. So, then - if we find (fill in the blank here), then the
"common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their
voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY
testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified
through experiment.

Take note here - contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair
exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits
imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions,
other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever
predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further
observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural
causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow
along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or
causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that
the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP
these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"-
just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test
that. Want to tell us that God - er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent
Designer - didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided
to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€"
just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can
perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the
supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or
observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science
is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's
therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the
window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits,
demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats,
whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of
them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show
us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic
science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis
"genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a
common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID
hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any
presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science
that stops ID dead in its tracks -- it is the simple inability of ID
"theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them
invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design
"theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining
about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic
explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed
"supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the
scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only
can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify
science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their
supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position
â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT
being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific
method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply
take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so,
that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire
argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism"
or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they
want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged
and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other
hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they
are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that
everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If
they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific
method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be
"science". Period.

You're rather off-topic here.

belief that they have some special standing which allows them to
determine content of public school science curricula.

arrogance they have forgotten that they function in strictly an
advisory capacity. It is the community which has, or should have,
authority to determine what their children will be taught.

Glod wrote:

All you have to do to demonstrate that there is a secular scientific
controversy is to produce the ID science. Until you do, I rest my
case.

That is being worked on, but you are laboring under a misapprehension.
The controversy is not wholly scientific.

The IDers claim that it is. I'm glad that you disagree with them.

It is largely social. Many
are tired of the scientist's ascription to themselves of a special
status of secular priests who promulgate a doctrine of philosophical
materialism.

This is a description of scientists which I, as a working scientist,
don't recognise. What evidence do you have that scientists
1) ascribe to themselves a special status and
2) promulgate a doctrine of philosophical materialism.

Science is by its very nature materialstic - i.e, it can only deal with
phenomena which can be observed and measured. That does not mean that
scientists themselves are "philosophical materalists". Individual
scientists may have relgious beliefs, and many are devout in such
beliefs. That doesn't affect the way they do their science, however.