I said, and have been saying, that intelligent design is a respectable theory. I've not introduced the word "hypothesis" except in response to others who have introduced it. You need to introduce that word if you want to break out of the junk science category. You have a vernacular theory, "Life is organized in such a way that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer." You need to do at least the following to gain credibility as science:
- Come up with clearly stated possible conditions where the theory will be shown false
- Generate specific hypotheses to support your theory, remember, hypotheses should be simply stated and concise
- Formulate and perform reproducible tests for these hypotheses
- Publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, and defend them on scientific merits without crying "we're being persecuted"
I'll tell you what you're up against, even in the realm of pure science, no supernatural claimed. The Cold Fusion guys went that far, but their work was destroyed by the scientific community, their tests not reproducible with any amount of predictability. The idea still remains, but is on the fringe of science with not much progress towards the goal of reproducible tests. It's mostly ignored, although will be considered again if anyone can reproduce the tests. The scientific community doesn't mind them still working on it, although it may snicker once in a while, but it won't take the CF researchers seriously again until they come up with something concrete.
And IDers think they can be accepted as science without even having done as much hard research and testing as those working on CF?
"That organized matter behaving according to predicatable laws will be found."
And as I've said, it has been found, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ID. The statement does not even require ID in order to be true.
And as I've said, it has been found, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ID.The word "necessarily" being key. I haven't said anything about "necessity" or even proofs. I am only stating what constitutes a reasonable theory based on the definition usally posted by evos. Intelligent design involves the organization of matter that behaves under predictable laws. The presence of such matter is ubiquitous. Therefore to infer intelligent design as present and operative throughout the universe is to indulge a reasonable explanation, or theory.