Sooner or later, I'm going to find the language that resonates with you so I can stop repeating myself.
I don't sidestep any more or less than you people sidestep (how did the first life form originate? where did the thing that exploded into the "big bang" come from?).
I don't invoke the supernatural any more or less than you people invoke it (how did the first life form originate? where did the thing that exploded into the "big bang" come from?).
Where do you think we're invoking the supernatural? We're saying those events are currently unknown, but awknowlege that one day we'll possibly make an observation and a model refinement that will provide an explanation for these events as well as provide predictions on which we can build reliable experiments around.
A theory is our best idea of how a system works. It is a model that has been verified experimentally. Something supernatural obviously cannot be modeled, as it would never be predictable.
If not knowing all the answers constitutes "sidestepping" and "invoking the supernatural," then we both do it to the same degree.
Nope, we don't.
Clearly, the explanation doesn't just begin with our appearance, does it? Evolution, the origin of life, the formation of earth, and the formation of the universe are all valid areas for scientific inquiry.
Sounds good to me.
No, you don't understand. Origin of life may not be explained right now but we are actively trying to figure it out. The Big Bang is not explained right now but we are actively trying to figure it out. You said:
If you would state that evolution doesn't address how the first life got there, or that the big bang doesn't address how the point of infinite density got there, then I would state that my theories don't address how the designer got there.
But I would not makes such statements. I would state that these theories do not yet explain those events, but are working on them. Likewise, you're obliged to figure out how the designer got there. The origin of life is just that: The Origin of Life. If we were designed by something living, we would still have to explain how that living thing got there.
We absolutely are interested in the Big Bang and how it got there, our theories on it are not yet complete enough to tell us (yet). We absolutely are interested in how life originated, but our theories are not yet complete enough to tell us how it happened. We are making every effort we can to turn the clock back as far as possible over all events.
Same for us.
So, you absolutely do have to address how the designer got there, sooner or later.
Not any sooner than you have to answer your unanswered questions.
So science is a serialized endeavor then? News to me. But as I said, we're working on our problems right now, are you?
I would first focus on developing a model that shows we were designed.
I would first focus on developing a model that shows we evolved.
We have one. It has been explained, even by me. I very, very simple language I'll tell you the punch line: Your kids look a lot like you. Where's your model for the designer? Care to post a link? I'm sure there is one, and you'd know where the most credible one is.
You said science doesn't discriminate between the natural and supernatural. I told you it filters the supernatural out, or the supernatural becomes natural. I'm trying to guage if you really know how science works at the fundamental level.
I will ask for the third or fourth time. Where in that 5 step scientific method of "observe, hypothesize, test, etc." does it say "discriminate between the natural and the supernatural?" It is a stupid thing for you to be harping on, because as I've said, I could care less about the supernatural, but since you people keep bringing it up, do you care to answer my question?
I'll answer you for the 3rd or 4th time, in the hope that you *might* finally understand the answer and give a comment that is relevent: You'll notice science has to form a model, then make predictions based on that model that can be verified experimentally. If something can be modeled and have effects reproduced in the lab, it isn't supernatural at all. You have a model, it becomes a theory of nature.
Supernatural = untraceable, random, cause-less events. These can be invoked anywhere in the univserse at any moment for any reason, and then may never occur again.
Natural = events that are traceable, therefore can be modeled and reproduced experimetally. Here is your connection to naturalism.
Another way to look at it is that a true supernatural event would put science in an infinite loop of experimentally trying and failing models. Science would fail but never know it, as it always tries to produce basically an equation to explain oberserved phenomena that will provide predictions that can be tested and re-tested in labs.
I'm actually asking questions about the philosophy of science. Pay attention. You are the one claiming evolution is wrong because of x,y,z, and that you think everything was just designed, but you refuse to supply the one thing you need to begin scientific equiry: observation or data. At least evolution has a fossil record and a ton of models that have been posted here already.
We use the same fossil record that you do. You don't own the fossil record.
So you have evidence of ID from the fossil record? Is the designer's skeleton in there somewhere?
To disprove a theory, you have to come up with a better model and show it works via experimentation. Otherwise, it's not science, it's a different philosophy.
Wrong. If your theory is wrong, I can just say its wrong. I don't need anything of my own in the way of models, experimentation, data, etc.
In other words, "Disproving a theory only requires someone to personally disagree with it by citing what they view as problems with the theory while not providing a better explanation."
Well, I claim that General Relativity is completely wrong due to the fact it leave a huge gaping hole where the big bang singularity should be and because it can't properly describe black holes. I guess it is now disproven.
Or perhaps, you really don't understand what a theory is after all.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_science
You will learn the core of why ID isn't science, and why science can't be redefinted from what it is to suit the philosophy ID is really founded upon.
