Once again, you have failed to see the two-edged sword. Try applying the criteria equally. Learn about subjective and objective truth. Find out that modern science follows the subjective route. Understand Integral Calculus and what it says about dating theories. Understand that "random chance through time" is as much a "contention" as the ID basis. Do a deep dive on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
What absolute completely irrelevant hogwash. ID is not even considered by serious scientists due to the almost total lack of evidence available upon which to apply the scientific method. The arguments that evidence exists are specious. Have you considered that perhaps the universe is not "fine-tuned" to support life, but that life is well adapted to survive in its universally diverse environments? Which is the more likely premise? Absent pre-conception, there is nothing objectively compelling to support your conclusions. Science works on a foundation of dis-belief. Always trying to falsify its own findings. Your methodology is exactly the opposite. Trying to find proof. Ergo, not science.
It is amazing to me that you don't realize that you use the same methods and arguments for evolution, albeit from a different worldview. You can't use the Scientific Method on history.
I strongly disagree. Firstly, the method proposed here is fundamentally flawed. If the contention is that *everything* has been designed, there is no objective metric from which to derive a design index. That's obvious. Secondly, every experiment ever conducted took place in the past. Historians have different methods, but all the science we know took place in the past. Evidence is usually historical in nature. I what you say were true, police wouldn't be able to solve crimes. You aren't suggesting that ridiculous notion of "observational" versus "historical" science, are you? And finally, I can think of no examples of methods or arguments similar to this one ever applied to abiogenesis or biodiversity. I would be quick to point out such flaws.
True enough. But the same might be applied to any topic and any question. This is not an argument that supports your case. I can invert your statement and use it to support the opposite view, Ergo, a logical fallacy.
Once again, you have failed to see the two-edged sword. Try applying the criteria equally. Learn about subjective and objective truth. Find out that modern science follows the subjective route. Understand Integral Calculus and what it says about dating theories. Understand that "random chance through time" is as much a "contention" as the ID basis. Do a deep dive on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Q: Is Intelligent Design science?
A: No.
What absolute completely irrelevant hogwash. ID is not even considered by serious scientists due to the almost total lack of evidence available upon which to apply the scientific method. The arguments that evidence exists are specious. Have you considered that perhaps the universe is not "fine-tuned" to support life, but that life is well adapted to survive in its universally diverse environments? Which is the more likely premise? Absent pre-conception, there is nothing objectively compelling to support your conclusions. Science works on a foundation of dis-belief. Always trying to falsify its own findings. Your methodology is exactly the opposite. Trying to find proof. Ergo, not science.
It is amazing to me that you don't realize that you use the same methods and arguments for evolution, albeit from a different worldview. You can't use the Scientific Method on history.
I strongly disagree. Firstly, the method proposed here is fundamentally flawed. If the contention is that *everything* has been designed, there is no objective metric from which to derive a design index. That's obvious. Secondly, every experiment ever conducted took place in the past. Historians have different methods, but all the science we know took place in the past. Evidence is usually historical in nature. I what you say were true, police wouldn't be able to solve crimes. You aren't suggesting that ridiculous notion of "observational" versus "historical" science, are you? And finally, I can think of no examples of methods or arguments similar to this one ever applied to abiogenesis or biodiversity. I would be quick to point out such flaws.
We don't vote on truth. History is replete with majorities, even learned ones for their time, being wrong.
True enough. But the same might be applied to any topic and any question. This is not an argument that supports your case. I can invert your statement and use it to support the opposite view, Ergo, a logical fallacy.
Loved the precision of your argument and the clarity of your vocabulary. So rich!