You don't know what Hoyle was thinking, yet you propose a possibility that specifically agrees with your argument? Even though you can't back it up? That's not valid way to make a point. It doesn't matter anyway, one scientists disagreeing with something that the rest of the scientific community agrees with based on scientific observation, doesn't add weight to your argument at all...especially when you "don't know why" he disagreed in the first place.
What exactly Hoyle was thinking is ancillary. He was a well know atheist most of his life. It is easily verified through reading. The point is, one, it is well known whether you accept it or not, that the steady state theory of the universe was held by Hoyle despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Two, scientists are not dispassionate or unbiased. Their world view and egos effect their positions. Especially when the evidence is not clear cut, but sometimes even when the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.
When I say "God", I only mean whatever cosmic force is the supposed designer. I noticed you ignored where I used the term designer, which would make that clear.
I ignored nothing. Your point does not stand. It does not matter what cosmic force you philosophize about. As I have pointed out clearly through words and example, there is a distinction between ID as a science of design detection and the philosophical implications of a designer.
From wikipedia:
The Cambrian Explosion is based on observation of something in nature. Dembski's work isn't based on anything solid. You can't possibly compare the two.
Dembski's and Meyer's work are based on the observations of genetic information, for example.
You are focusing on the wrong idea. The Cambrian Explosion is based on observations, but the theories of why it happened are not directly deduced from the observations. They are really speculations that researchers try and corroborate. They speculate about why, and then try and build a case for it. Some of the theories about why are completely non-falsifiable and have no evidence. For example, there are some that speculate the event occurred because of a kind of biological "tipping point" that was reached.
The scientific reasonings used in analysing the Cambrian Explosion are very analogous to those used in ID. It is called abductive reasoning. You should broaden your understanding of these subjects.
Where Dembski's work fails, is that HE is the one that determines where to ascribe mathematical figures and probabilities. That makes it subjective. Mathematics should never rely on what you "think" a probabity of something should be; probability is also based on clear observation, such the number of dots on a six-side die. Dembski's figures aren't based on observation, but on what HE THINKS it should be. Making up your own probabilities is not only unscientific, but not even honest math.
Please provide citations as to what values you think he is improperly attributing. Specifically what did he "make up"? Have you read any of Dembski's work?
You don't understand probability theory. There is a branch (Bayesian) of probability theory that uses
subjective probabilities.
ID hasn't accomplished anything scientific, nor can it be used to make any scientific predictions.
Then you must conclude the science involved in discovering the cause of the Cambrian Explosion suffers the same problems. We will
never know for sure why the Cambrian event happened. Also, SETI has not discovered any aliens yet either.
Meyer lists possible predictions in Appendix A of
Signature in The Cell. To be honest it is disheartening to see so many people who claim to stand behind science yet resist reading anything out side of their comfort zone. It is almost as if people are afraid of reading about ID.
Abiogenesis makes predictions based on what we know about life, and what we know is required for life. It's because abiogenesis could make scientific predictions, that Stanley Miller could predict that organic compounds could be synthesized from inorgnic ones.
False. Your reasoning is off. Abiogenesis does not predict amino acids. It needs them in some obscure and unspecified way. There is no theory that has specified a sequence of plausible steps to forming life that uses the amino acids produced in Millers experiments.
Abiogenesis has shown results. ID hasn't shown anything, and isn't usable to do anything scientific, nor can it make any scientific predictions. You say that Abiogenesis has made scientific breakthroughs, but the Stanley Miller experiment proves you wrong.
You've ignored my examples of how ID could be used in areas such as SETI.
You are using abiogenesis in a gross way. "Abiogenesis" has not produced anything. There is no theory of abiogenesis yet. Abiogenesis has goals of producing life. None of the current claimed intermediary steps can be placed into a plausible sequence. Truth is, people believe in abiogenesis not because of evidence, but rather because they disbelieve God had anything to do with it. No other reason.
And if a "breakthrough" is your criteria for being a "myth", than by your own standard, ID is a scientfic myth as well, since it's made NO breakthroughs.
This is a non sequitur. Abiogenesis is a myth because people make existing evidence more then it is. Related results are championed all while ignoring the chasms that are not just undiscovered, but also have evidence that they are uncrossable. OOL researchers ignore the obvious gulfs by just waving their hands and pretending time will make it happen - magic time. They misunderstand probability.
ID is not elevated beyond what it is.
