Faith Well Grounded

So supernatural (by definition, unrepeatable) causes are included *by default* in a process that relies on exprimentation and observation? That's rich!

If that's where the empirical evidence leads. To disallow it a priori and call it the pursuit of truth can also be considered "rich".

You seem to gloss over the fact that they do not invoke the supernatural as a *scientific* explanation. They don't include the supernatural in the scientific process, they merely supplement the science with philosophical statements to cover the unknown.

Did you not read the latest post on Newton (as only one example)? (edit,: here-- http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/isaac-newton-creationist)

You seem to gloss over the fact that they do not invoke the supernatural as a *scientific* explanation. They don't include the supernatural in the scientific process, they merely supplement the science with philosophical statements to cover the unknown.

See my response directly above-- and the post on Newton while you're at it (http://faithwellgrounded.org/apologetics/isaac-newton-creationist). Further, you seem to indicate that ID includes the supernatural as part of the *process*, as if they are wearing wizard robes and consulting Ouija boards. The false association is beneath you.

What does ID say beyond "natural selection is incapable..." and goddidit? Is there anything testable beyond the negative arguments? If the negative arguments prove true, is ID the *only* other answer?

...and (when badly describing the positive evidence offered that you just claimed hasn't been offered)...

From what I've seen, it boils down to: check the probability of all the hypotheses we can think of, and if they're all sufficiently low, we can infer design. I'm pretty sure his filter has been applied to many things and shown to at least sometimes give incorrect results.

Wow, you answered you own question! You don't even need me. As an aside, I'm reading it first hand to judge it on its own and in its own words. (I'm not trying to be rude. I promise, but...) I've gotten the impression through our discussions here that you seem to read the evolutionists' refutation without reading the author's actual works or responses to defend their work. If that is the case, then I can understand why you would consider ID "refuted."

I've just started Dembski's "Design Inference", but (as was the case of Stanford's work that you considered refuted without reading), he is building on the accepted work of pioneers in the field. (Also note that another example that makes me think that you aren't actually reading what you consider refuted is your repeated treatments of Behe, where his [updated] book actually deals specifically with many of the details you argue to.)

Dembski deals with the supposed incorrect results in his articles of response to his critics, if memory serves.

Your assumption of the motivation for the current definition of science is unsupported.

Maybe... But I'll hold it until a better option is given than the philosophical assumptions and arguments to authority so far. As it stands, science is defined so as to disallow anything that could disprove naturalistic assumptions. I guess we can each judge for ourselves.

There's that contrived dualism again. Natural selection fails, so design wins by default! What? No, we don't have to consider any other possibilities! That's up to the heathen evolutionists to figure out.

First, you have already admitted that positive arguments have been given. Have you read the positive arguments, or just the supposed refutations?

Secondly, natural selection is the only mechanism offered to deny the **apparent** (even as admitted by such polemics as Dawkins) design in nature. So, if naturalists lose their only holy cow, it's up to them to propose another holy cow to discount what is **apparent** in nature. Sorry... That's how it works.

Now, if you're so all-fired ready to prove the dualism is contrived, take me up on my offer and provide that third alternative.

I'll stop the negative argument claim when a testable positive argument is provided.

See above. Do your due diligence before writing an argument off as no good. Also note in the other thread that you've admitted evolution evidence as just fine when it is "just-so" explanation that is untestable. As a matter of fact, you took umbrage that Behe expected testable evidence of the unobservable. Per:

Huh? I never said proving evolution is too much to ask. I said Behe's specific burden of proof for certain IC systems is unreasonable.

Please try to keep up on the duality thing: ID folks contrived the duality because the only testable arguments they could muster are negative arguments against evolution.

Behe asks for specific, scientific accounts for the process of evolved IC systems. What we've gotten is "just-so" explanation that ignore most of the specific points that Behe points out makes them IC. You even presented one today as acceptable response.

So, again... Behe asks for specifics and you are incredulous. But you are also incredulous when you accuse ID. And, I'm sorry, but if you consider Behe refuted, then you haven't read Behe's original work OR his defenses to the proposed refutations.

You also continue to ignore proposed positive evidence after admitting above that it exists. I think you all but admitted that you haven't actually read the proposed positive evidence, but you are considering it refuted? Is this another of your appeals to authority? Is it a "true Scotsman" fallacy?

When the scientific method deals with empirical evidence, experimentation, and repeatability, where exactly does supernatural causation fit in?

When the empirical evidence and experimentation points to it?

And, if you are requiring repeatability as a criteria for causation, then go ahead and remove as scientific disciplines:

Forensics-- Let's just make the murderer kill again before we can piece together the crime.

Archeology-- We can never know anything about history since those dead cultures will never form and thrive again.

neo-Darwinism-- You've admitted on here that the proposed macroevolution works much too slowly to be observed. You're piecing together the unobserved as best you can.

There are several kinds of science, and it takes the right kind for each question.

They do that for a very good reason: because they got their butt handed to them by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. ID was born as a direct result of that ruling, something that the Dover trial made very clear.
Creationism - God = ID.

I thought you said there were central religious tenents; now they're left out? See:

Those have been refuted, but the religious central tenent can never be.

The above statement clinches for me that you have not read either Behe or Dembski any deeper than a superficial read. Behe has a chapter called "Science, Philosophy, Religion" that deals **specifically** with this point, and you won't even make it through the first chapter of Dembski's "Design Inference" before his sections dealing explicitly with it.

On the note of "refutation", I must say again that I look a bit sideways at your repeated claims of refutation. Behe's "10 years later" appendix in his 10th anniversary edition of "...Black Box" deals specifically with most (or all?) of the refutation that I think you refer to against his work. He responds fully in multiple articles on his author pages. He holds up well, even if you don't appreciate his criteria. As a matter of fact, I would contend that he's well defended both his assertions and his criteria for refutation.

Even before starting in on Dembski's books, I've trudged through dozens of his responses to his critics, and he seems to have a grasp on his work and its applicability. Though, not having read him as fully as I have Behe, I can't attest yet to such an high assurance. What I can say, dogg, is that I am giving them a full reading, along with the claims of the neo-Darwinian establishment.