[snip]

I didn't say otherwise. I am just comparing flimsy ideas that
seem acceptable to the science community to flimsy ideas that
don't, and there seems to be some bias. Sure, creationists are
often idiots and duhlts, but I think the same human failings
can be found in the scientific establishment in various
degrees.

I tell you what, sight unseen I would put the flimsiest peer
reviewed scientific String Theory paper to the best creationist
or Intelligent Design paper you can find. I will bet you real
money that the worst published String Theory paper has at least
as much, and likely far more, evidence in support and
scientific rigor as the best creationist or Intelligent Design
paper you can find. What do you think?

So if somebody creates a bunch of complicated math that has so
many wiggle-room holes and 11-dimensional escape routes such that
it can be re-parameterized to predict whatever is observed, it is
automatically better than ID?

I think you put too much faith in mathameticians. If they keep on
this route, they will actually be building a god.

I missed something with my last response. I did not say it
*automatically* made it better. I gave you a *challenge*. I
*predicted* it would be better. All you have to do now is produce
the best ID paper you can find, the one that you think is actual
science. Then we can see how it stacks up to a poor quality String
Theory paper. It was a bet, do you want to take me up on it or do
you agree that, as a matter of fact not definition, the ID paper
will be much worse science than the peer reviewed String Theory
paper?

How do we test "worse"? Worsometer?

Lets look. Try to see if they propose some tests. Try to see if they
attempt to support their own ideas rather than attack those of
others. Try to see if they make use of the best current science or
deal with things decades old.

Who is this "they" and why does it matter? Test ideas, not people. The
laws of the universe don't count the number of supporters or sample
their other opinions before they decide whether to activate
themselves.

[snip]

I didn't say otherwise. I am just comparing flimsy ideas that seem
acceptable to the science community to flimsy ideas that don't, and
there seems to be some bias. Sure, creationists are often idiots and
duhlts, but I think the same human failings can be found in the
scientific establishment in various degrees.

I tell you what, sight unseen I would put the flimsiest peer reviewed
scientific String Theory paper to the best creationist or Intelligent
Design paper you can find. I will bet you real money that the worst
published String Theory paper has at least as much, and likely far
more, evidence in support and scientific rigor as the best creationist
or Intelligent Design paper you can find. What do you think?

So if somebody creates a bunch of complicated math that has so many
wiggle-room holes and 11-dimensional escape routes such that it can be
re-parameterized to predict whatever is observed, it is automatically
better than ID?

I think you put too much faith in mathameticians. If they keep on this
route, they will actually be building a god.

I missed something with my last response. I did not say it
*automatically* made it better. I gave you a *challenge*. I
*predicted* it would be better. All you have to do now is produce the
best ID paper you can find, the one that you think is actual science.
Then we can see how it stacks up to a poor quality String Theory
paper. It was a bet, do you want to take me up on it or do you agree
that, as a matter of fact not definition, the ID paper will be much
worse science than the peer reviewed String Theory paper?

How do we test "worse"? Worsometer?

Lets look. Try to see if they propose some tests. Try to see if they
attempt to support their own ideas rather than attack those of others.
Try to see if they make use of the best current science or deal with
things decades old.

Who is this "they" and why does it matter? Test ideas, not people.

The
laws of the universe don't count the number of supporters or sample
their other opinions before they decide whether to activate themselves.

I suppose you could claim that misused math is better than a theory
that has no mathematical model. However, evolution has not been
mathematically modeled that I know of.

So you don't know, that is your issue. (The question here, though, was
String Theory vs. ID). There is plenty of math in evolution. Look up
Population Genetics, for an example.

But that just counts stuff.

It does not show how very complex organisms
do come from simple ones. It takes large extrapolation from much
smaller scales to conclude that.

Well, I take that back, there
are some computer simulations that could be called "math" algorithms
(an interesting classification debate itself), but those are recent.
Evo was still considered the best theory *before* such simulations were
possible.

What a surprise, it was science before there were computers.

Which shows that full simulation is not a prerequisite to be considered
"science".

You make it sound like I am attacking the merit of natural
selection. I am not, so your sarcasm is moot.

Thus, math was not necessary back them to make it "science".

I agree, but that was not the claim or the point. This is a strawman.

I thought the premise was that ST had "math" and ID did not, and thus
ST was "science" because of that. Please clarify your criteria for
"science", and please DON'T include the behavior of supporters as part
of it.
In fact, let's make it a CHALLENGE:

Present some clear-cut criteria for being "science" that flunks ID but
does NOT flunk:

1. Natural Selection
2. Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle)
3. String Theory

and does NOT involve the behavior of supporters or detractors as part
of the criteria. In other words, no "but ID'ers won't do this and
that".

Nor has a "god" simulation been ruled out.

I don't have a clue what that means.

That would take too long to describe. Let's file that one for now.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if
time can flow backward outside of our universe, then a creator may be
possible without relying on the "supernatural".

Sorry, but the "if" part, referring to something that bears no
relationship to what we actually observe, makes it nonsense. I don't
care if it is non-supernatural nonsense. If and when you have a whole
lot of evidence for time actually "flowing backwards" and for
intentional beings going back in time to the appropriate times and
places and for them doing the appropriate things, then you might have
science. That some thing could be science does not mean that some
other thing is science.

Again, I never claimed that such was a "strong" idea. I am only saying
ID is a contendor in the race, not the best bet. It is a "scientific
idea", unlike what many of you claim.

Thus, untested A does not seem better than untested B so far.

I repeat: show me the best ID paper and I will try to find a terrible
String Theory paper and we can compare them. Don't hand wave about
time going backwards,

So ST gets to handwave about assuming 11 dimensions, but others can't
touch time? Screw that! You get to fiddle, I get to fiddle. If cranking
out dimensions is allowed, but touching time is not, who gets to make
such borders???

show me the scientific peer reviewed paper on
the topic. And on how designers actually did go back in time and do
something.

At this point it is "speculative science", and I will agree that ID
should be classified as "speculative science",

along with time-travel
and MU's. But speculative science is *still* science, so saying that ID
is "not science" is incorrect.

Link on time-travel:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

Snippets from link:

Sagan: It's still somewhat of a heretical ideal to suggest that every
interference with an event in the past leads to a fork, a branch in
causality. You have two equally valid universes: one, the one that we
all know and love, and the other, which is brought about by the act of
time travel. I know the idea of the universe having to work out a
self-consistent causality is appealing to a great many physicists, but
I don't find the argument for it so compelling. I think inconsistencies
might very well be consistent with the universe.

NOVA: As a physicist, what do you make of Stephen Hawking's
chronological protection conjecture [which holds that the laws of
physics disallow time machines]?

Sagan: There have been some toy experiments in which, at just the
moment that the time machine is actuated, the universe conspires to
blow it up, which has led Hawking and others to conclude that nature
will contrive it so that time travel never in fact occurs. But no one
actually knows that this is the case, and it cannot be known until we
have a full theory of quantum gravity, which we do not seem to be on
the verge of yet.

More links:

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/timetrav.htm

It is gonna be hoot when the Supreme Court has to make rulings on the
possibility of time travel.