Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bruce Barnett wrote:

writes:


There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.

I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
no evolutionary 'dead ends'.


But there are evolutionary dead ends. e.g. Dodo birds.
So does that mean the predictive ability of ID fails?
I'll let Tim answer that.


Why do you presume that an intelligent designer is required
to produce an *optimal* design? Talk about a leap of faith.
The assertion that there is design supposes nothing about
the elegance, parsimony, or beauty of said design, merely
that there is *intention* in the design rather than purely
random/chaotic/probablistic mechanisms (and these may also
exist in a "designed" environment).

Does that answer it for you?

I'm far more interested in what testable hypothesis you find
or propose that can be used to discriminate between ID and
slow mutation and natural selection.

Absent a testable hypothesis, there is no _scientific_
difference between ID and slow mutation and natural selection.

ID would then be a philosophic ocnstruct combining a scientific
theory with somethign else that is not a cientific theory.

--

FF