Hey Snt Johnny, it's been a long time since I've visited your site. Here's a couple reasons evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is not.

Evolution is a theory of life which based on the present data concerning fossils, genomes, and living species. As with all scientific theories, evolution only admits evidence which can actually be observed.

Intelligent design is a theory of life based on the absence of data, such as gaps in the fossil record and how life first got started. It's central hypothesis requires an intelligent entity which has never been observed.

Newton wrote in his Principia his "Rules of Reasoning" for science. There are only four.

1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain the appearances. (Occam's Razor)

2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. (Gravity explains the falling of stones both in Kansas and Canberra).

3: The qualities of bodies and phenomena which are found to be true within reach of our experiments are esteemed to be universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. (In other words, the laws of nature as we determine them by experiment here and now are also true at other places and times).

4: In experimental philosophy (science), we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which these propositions may be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow [so] that the the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

Newton could describe the gravitational attraction of one mass to another, but he could not explain the cause of this attraction. "I frame no hypotheses", he said, "for whatever cannot be deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis, and hypotheses have no place in science".

So by Newton's rules, proposing an intelligent designer (the existence of which cannot be deduced from observable phenomena) as an explanation of evolution is an hypothesis, and therefore not scientific.

"Evolution is a theory of life which based on the present data concerning fossils, genomes, and living species. As with all scientific theories, evolution only admits evidence which can actually be observed."

Are you saying that design cannot be observed?

"Intelligent design is a theory of life based on the absence of data,"

False.

"such as gaps in the fossil record and how life first got started."

False.

"It's central hypothesis requires an intelligent entity which has never been observed."

False.

Three false statements right in a row, buddy.  I know this will sound like an odd question, but are you a man or a woman?  I can't get your text to sound right in my head.  The name 'broken' is a bit... well it can go both ways.  :)

"Newton wrote in his Principia his "Rules of Reasoning" for science. There are only four."

I'm glad you mention Newton.  Good stuff.  We'll have to post it again somewhere.

"Newton could describe the gravitational attraction of one mass to another, but he could not explain the cause of this attraction."

Incidentally, as far as I know, we still can't explain the cause of this attraction.

"So by Newton's rules, proposing an intelligent designer  (the existence of which cannot be deduced from observable phenomena)"

Ah, but there is the rub, and that is why your three statements above are false.  Contrary to the propoganda, a systematic presentation of ID will NOT begin with the assumption that there is an intelligent designer.  Nor is it important that this intelligent agent is supernatural.  Indeed, ID attempts to begin by 'deducing from the observable phenomena.'  

"as an explanation of evolution is an hypothesis, and therefore not scientific."

I think you surely misspoke there.  Explanation of evolution?

Your whole contradiction fails because of either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of ID.  Seriously, do you think that we cannot observe design?  That's a simple yes or no question.  If you admit that we can observe it, then it certainly is open to scientific inquiry, as both you and Newton must concur.  If you say 'no,' I want to hear how you manage to live throughout the day, getting from place to place safely, eating prepared food instead of accidentally eating gravel, or even being able to recognize and distinguish the computer you are sitting before right now from the natural background we are immersed in.

So, yes or no- can we observe design?

Welcome back, btw.

"I was describing evolution. I did not say design could not be observed."

It sure sounded as though that's what you were saying, though.  See my next comment.

"However, we observe no designers of the sort hypothesized by Intelligent design."

But that's irrelevant.  Similarly, you might be able to say that we observe no mechanisms of the sort hypothesized by evolution.  See for example this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#theorytobetested

Note this statement:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

So really, if your charge is valid, it sticks to evolution as much as it does to ID.  One can infer design without caring one lick as to who anyone might think the correct identity of that designer is.

"True. Go visit the Discovery Institute website. They maintain that the origin of life is due to an intelligent designer."

But NOT a priori.  as you admit:

"IDers such as Behe maintain that the bacterial flagellum is evidence of "irreducible complexity"."

That's starting with evidence and coming to a conclusion.  You can't nail a person because they have come to a conclusion, say as much, and then go in to show why they have come to that conclusion.

"The data on the precursor organism is absent. So, as I said, the IDer's use the absence of evidence as evidence."

The 'precursor organism'?  That's assuming evolution.  What data?  Perhaps the data is 'absent' because it does not exist.

Or, perhaps it is 'absent' because it can not even possibly exist.

If it cannot even possibly exist, then it is positive evidence, not negative evidence.

Your flaw is in importing evolutionary assumptions into the subject.  In this example, the flagellum is not argued because of a lack of data, but because it is argued that no such data can ever be forthcoming, period.  Note, this is falsifiable in that if one actually did observe the evolution of the flagellum.

"Err, the theory is even called "Intelligent Design". An intelligent agent is the central hypothesis. If you think this agent has ever been observed, perhaps you can point me to the evidence."

No, design is the central hypothesis.  The agent is inferred, and has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence points to design or not.  

Surely you don't oppose to inferences in science?

"Throwing spitwads already, are we?."

?

I really wanted to know.

"Broken was the name I used on various online military-simulation game websites. A common goal is to "break" the morale of your opponents forces. Broken also means to think outside the box, as in "break" the rules. I was too lazy to change my name when I came here."

Kewl.  I played rainbow 6 for awhile.  I also enjoyed world war 2 online.

"I agree. ID does not BEGIN with the assumption of an intelligent designer. It claims certain biological systems could not have evolved through natural selection and that life could not have arisen on it's own. THEREFORE, say the IDers, the only explanation is an intelligent designer."

First of all, you've here given up the argument.  If it does not begin with the assumption of an intelligent designer you can't argue that as much, as you did only a few paragraphs ago (See the SS Fallacy) in saying  "we observe no designers of the sort hypothesized by Intelligent design"  

"This is like saying: we know of no mechanism which could account for gravity, therefore it must be caused by intelligent angels."

No, this is like saying we know we evolved from a common ancestor, but we don't know how.  

"There is no phenomena to suggest the existence of an intelligent designer,"

That, of course, is only your opinion.  

"Because intelligent agents, and presumably the Divine Agent, have causal powers that nature does not have, intelligent design may always be a possible explanation."

And people complain about creationists taking things out of context.  And  you are committing another contextual blunder, too, but I will take it in your next remark.  First,  here is the next sentence:

"Nevertheless, possible explanations are not necessarily the best explanations."

He's not supporting your point one bit by offering ID as always being a 'possible explanation' given the fact he follows with the point that a possible explanation is not the best explanation.  You could also say that naturalistic (non-agency) explanations are possible for everthing as well.  Its the flipside of the same coin, with the result that the same can hold for evolution:  "Possible explanations are not necessarily the best explanations."

"So Meyer is directly contradicting you: the intelligent agent has causal powers nature does not have: it is supernatural."

I did a cursory search through that document and Meyer constantly goes out of his way, when saying either 'divine agency' or 'agency' to make it clear that what he is saying can apply to both.  So, he is not even close to contradicting me.  He is not saying that 'the' intelligent agent has causal powers that nature does not have, and referring to, by using the word 'the' the 'divince agent.'  How'd you miss it....  See if you see the same equivocation about agency and divine agency in the following sentence...

"Because intelligent agents, and presumably the Divine Agent, have causal powers that nature does not have"

So, unless you are arguing that you and I also are 'supernatural' or think that's what he is saying, you are taking him out of context completely.  He is saying that WE have causal powers that nature does not have, as well.  Similarly, Francis Crick's intelligent agents he posited for his directed panspermia are not posited to have been divine agents, right?  Carl Sagan's intelligent agents in "Contact" were not presumed to have been divine agents, and yet, both would be consistent with Meyer's statement about them having 'causal powers that nature does not have."

I feel..... supernatural.  :)

"Fine, but then ID is no longer science. And theoretical physics hypotheses such as string theory are accepted only as hypotheses yet to be experimentally verified."

How is this view here (I didn't read Meyer any further to see if you were put him in the proper context in this case, as well) consistent with:

"I did not say design could not be observed. We are surrounded by devices of human design. We even see many examples of animal design, such as beehives, beaver-dams, and bird's nests."

Do you feel as you wander this earth that you have troubles confidently detecting design around you?

Let me offer something to you that I'm not sure how you will respond to.  Let's ignore the flaws in your argument and say that design is too awfully hard to detect in a scientific manner and so cannot be really be considered science.  Or whatever.  Let me retort to your 'Fine' by offering my own:

Fine, if science is so limited and castrated and incompetent so as to even be able to recognize design reliably- even though you and I both know that we can reliably detect design without the aid of the scientific method (so easy, a baby can do it)- then, ok, let's not have design qualify as 'science.'  I can live with that.  But don't be shocked if I don't feel compelled very much to consider science to be a very robust method of discovering truth in this world if it cannot even tell me the difference between a house and a pile of lumber.

I think that's a good way of putting it.  Do you think that science can be appropriately used to reliably determine whether or not a system of lumber is the product of design or not?

"No, we do not observe design except that of human or animal origin."

This is begging the question in disguise.  :)  What do you make of Sagan's intelligent agents?  The nature of the designer can be treated separately and distinct from the identity of the designer.  What do you make of Crick's intelligent agents?

So, unless you are arguing that you and I also are 'supernatural' or think that's what he is saying, you are taking him out of context completely. He is saying that WE have causal powers that nature does not have, as well. Similarly, Francis Crick's intelligent agents he posited for his directed panspermia are not posited to have been divine agents, right? Carl Sagan's intelligent agents in "Contact" were not presumed to have been divine agents, and yet, both would be consistent with Meyer's statement about them having 'causal powers that nature does not have."

I feel..... supernatural. Smile

Of course, you know what my view is on that subject.  :)

How do you get to the archives nowadays?

hmmmm....well what about the first one....that dead too or can you link that one up for us?

Yeh! we may get archives back, cool!

"How can the key conclusion of Intelligent Design, ie., the existence of said Designer, be irrelevant? We do not observe such a Designer."

It's irrelvant because its irrelevant.  We don't NEED to observe such a designer.   This is an inference, much as you observing natural selection allows you to infer that this process accounts for every biological organism known to exist.   I quoted from talkorigins on this point, and it still holds.  If you wish to dismiss ID as science on these grounds, you'll have to dismiss evolutionary theory, as well.  Having now read almost all of that article you posted, this is the point Meyer makes as well.

""Similarly, you might be able to say that we observe no mechanisms of the sort hypothesized by evolution.""

"We observe both selection and variation in life. We observe that all living creatures are descended from other living creatures."

But you do NOT observe the natural selction that is alleged to have accounted for these living creatures.  It is an inference.

Truly, this is a losing battle, because I can at once marshal a number of evolutionary sources that confirm this very point.  You may very well think its a good inference- they certainly do- but it is nonetheless an inference.

"We do not observe Designers of life."

No?  What about this:  http://www.csus.edu/news/100305eugenics.stm

Its just one example that can quickly be produced for 'designers of life.'   How could it not have occurred to you that humans themselves are designing life?  Is it your position that if a human were to design life, no other human would be able to tell that this life were designed?  

But let's make sure we stay on point:  You don't need to observe designers of life in order for ID to be scientific.  All you have to do is constrain yourself to the observable data that you do have.  Note, the statement that I just made should resonate well with you since you think evolution is supported so well by observable data.  But ID folks are willing to do the same thing- they just draw a different inference.   It would be pedantic and petty, but you could say that the only scientific part of this process is the part where you are constrained by the observable data, and so therefore making the inference from that data to design is making a philosophical judgment, but that pulls the rug out from beneath you, as inferring from the observable data that natural selection is the right inference is also an inference, and so also a 'philosophical judgment.'

It's really as simple as that.

"He is saying common descent is the most valid conclusion even if you throw out all the evidence of how that descent occured. Common descent is an auxillary concept to evolution."

And an actual intelligent agent is an auxillary concept to intelligent design.  You don't need to know anything about the identify of the designer in order to infer designer.  If this tortured logic were to go forward, we would have to throw out forensic science, anthropology, and archeology, to name a few.  After all, if you find a pottery shard in the earth that is several thousand years old, it is pretty unlikely that you'll know the identify of the creator of that shard, and that's ok, because that question is completely independant to the process of determining whether or not you have a pottery shard!

Unless it is now your contention that archeology is not science, either, because it is able to reliably distinguish artifacts from the natural background without being bound also to name the identity of those artifacts.

"This is a key flaw of ID. The designer can have any characteristics imaginable. There are no restrictions."

This again is completely false.  If you'd read Meyer's piece in full, or even the next few sentences from the part you quoted, you would know that is the case.  Furthermore, once again, your charge does actually apply also to evolution.  If you are not allowing yourself to explore intelligent causes for things, you are saying that you have no restrictions in coming up with something from a naturalist point of view.

In this view, you're asking us to believe even the most ridiculous possibilities just so long as they are 'naturalistic.'

"The theory of evolution likewise places great restrictions on the dynamics of life. According to evolution,"

Actually, ID is compatible with all three of these:

1) All living things are descendents of other living things. An even greater restriction is common descent: all living things have a common pool of ancestors.

2) All living things are subject to selection by their environment: if they do not fit well in their environment, they do not reproduce. Only organisms which reproduce pass genetic information to future generations.

3) Living things may vary in small degree from their parents. We understand these variations to be due to changes in their genetic information. These changes are caused by mutations, sexual recombination, and viral infections, to name a few mechanisms.

So here you go and present information that is just as compatible with ID as it is 'evolution.'  What did you gain?  Nothing.  ID acknowledges the same facts.  ....

"Across many generations, the feedback between 2) and 3) causes the types of living things to change, especially in response to changes in their environment. This process works by trial and error. Each organism is a trial, and the errors do not reproduce."

Ah, but that is your inference.  That is not your observation, and that is where if ID fails, so too does evolution.

"From these simple yet highly restrictive axioms, evolution informs the entire structure of biology. All known biological data are consistent with these premises."

Actually, biology is informed cheifly by genetics.  If it were not so, you would not have needed a neo-darwinian synthesis.  At anyrate, your premises are not exclusively the domain of evolutionary theory, so they can't be considered as evidence for evolutionary theory.

If both theory A and theory B account for data C, then C cannot be used in such a way to elevate either A or B over each other.

"Since it places no restrictions, it does nothing to help narrow the trial and error search for scientific knowledge. It is useless as a scientific theory."

The only way that this has any meat to it at all is if you can actually link the notion that observing something that is designed necessitates also the requirement of knowing the designer.  You will not be able to provide any analogy or example to support that notion.

However, interpreting everything in a naturalistic way similarly places no restrictions.  

"Since ID hypothesizies an intelligent designer of completely unrestricted nature, it places no restrictions on what we can observe. It is useless as a scientific theory."

The ironic thing is that you have already admitted that the nature of the designer is irrelevant in observing design:

"I did not say design could not be observed."

But I think you must have misspoke again:  "it places no restrictions on what we can observe."

OBVIOUSLY we have restrictions on what we can observe.  We can only observe what we observe!  Its a tautology.  You must surely mean- but you cannot say without conceding the argument- that it places no restrictions on what we can INFER.

In which case, we are exactly again at the point with evolution.  If you are hell bent in only inferring naturalistic mechanisms from what we DO observe, then there are no limits on what we can infer.   I recall an argument I had once with an atheist about the Resurrection.  His argument:  Even if every single bit of evidence supported the Resurrection and it was indisputable, we should favor even something like Captain Kirk beamed Jesus aboard his ship, because that possibility- though obviously and patently absurd and devoid of evidence- is at least a naturalistic solution, and by God, any naturalistic solution is to be preferred over anything that 'smacks' of the supernatural.

Which reminds me.  You've completely ignored Sagan's conceptualization of intelligent designers in his book, "Contact" as well as Crick's "Directed Panspermia."  In both cases, the observed data is inferred as pointing towards a designer, and in both cases you have renowned atheistic scientists (well, Crick probably wasn't an atheist, but a renowned scientist at anyrate) who infer design without any need to know the nature of the designer NOR is the designer they infer 'supernatural.'

I'd appreciate a response on these points.  Is SETI unscientific?  Directed Panspermia may be a rejected scientific inquiry, but it was nonetheless scientific.  Right?

"Greetings, sntjohnny. I see that you are still hammering away at the forces of "evilution"."  

Still can't resist taking aim at cretinists, eh?  

"IDism would be considered a science if its proponents could come up with a successful method of distinguishing between natural design and artificial design. Their failure to do that makes the endeavor unscientific."

Who says they haven't?  Actually, I don't think you even state the criticism all that well.  We already have successful methods of distinguishing between natural design and artifical design.  (I don't think it is fair to equivocate the terms, btw).  What is that successful method?

We look at it.

Even an infant can do it.  I bet even you can do it.  :)

Putting your challenge more directly, you might want to focus on 'reliably' rather than 'successfully.'  And I'm pretty sure they have done some good work in this direction, though you suggest otherwise.

"Yes. Intuitions are unreliable. Scientists don't usually get their papers published if they report that their conclusions are so intuitively correct that they do not require evidence to confirm them."

Intuitions are not ALWAYS unreliable.  If it truly is your contention that our intuitions are unreliable in this matter, then I propose that we test YOUR intuition, and anyone else.  I will present, say, 100 items that I know are designed, and see if you can reliably detect whether they are designed by your 'intuition' alone.

Seriously, if you think you can dismiss a core aspect of what it means to be human because to do so would undermine your philosophical agenda, you've gone off the deep end.

Even if we allowed your point, its not enough to casually dismiss it.  We can attempt to measure just how unreliable our intuition is on the matter.  Furthermore, we depend a great deal on intuition even in science, so if you are going to dismiss it, you've really undermined a great many things you would rather not see undermined.

"If it is your opinion that the scientific method needs to change because it fails to confirm your religious intuitions, then your opinion needs to change."

My religious intuitions have nothing to do with it.  I don't need to be religious to detect design.  Can you detect design?  If you can, does that mean you are employing 'religious intuitions' ?

None of these are rhetorical questions.  Please answer them.

Welcome back, btw.