Continuing the discussion from John Wesley on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design:
I’ve edited what you wrote only to number your claims to more clearly address the problems with each of them:
People make claims; fuzzy concepts like “biological ID” cannot.
In real science, theories don’t “revolve around” concepts, they describe mechanisms and make empirical predictions. “Empirical” in this context means what we directly observe or measure, not how you or I or anyone else will interpret those measurements and observations after we have them.
People present evidence. In science, anyone can test any clearly-stated hypothesis (the ID movement doesn’t have one), so this makes no sense. Even worse, those who advocate for a hypothesis are expected to be those who devise the most stringent tests to falsify the hypothesis, so Bio writing this amounts to a rejection of the scientific method.
This is circular. This is not a prediction, it is the hypothesis itself.
This is not a prediction either. Bio is completely confused here, conflating the hypothesis with the prediction.
That’s the hypothesis, not the prediction! A scientific prediction has to refer only to what we directly observe or measure, and there’s nothing of the sort here.
Please, Bio, provide an empirical prediction. What should we directly observe or measure if your ID hypothesis is false? What should we observe if it is correct? The former is far more important than the latter. The whole point of science is to prevent us from engaging in wishful thinking–all interpretation of the observations needs to be baked in before you get them. I see no willingness to do so from you.
The easiest way to distinguish pseudoscience from science is to see if there are any real, empirical predictions. Trying to falsify one’s most precious hypothesis is much more important than trying to support it. Bio, I don’t see any evidence from what you write that you are willing to test your hypothesis.
For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury, the deflection of light by the sun and other large bodies, and the gravitational redshift of light. Note that all of these predictions are empirical measurements, not subject to interpretation.