I have a question. If I don't know what lightning is or where it came from, does that "prove" it came from thor? Would it be valid to say that it must come from thor because "there are only two possible explanations"? Does my not understanding something validate your unsubstantiated assertion? Because that's exactly the logic you're espousing.

And when you say "I'm saying that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be here. Either it all arose spontaneously out of nothing, or God created it all as the Bible describes."

That is a false dilemma, it simply ignores the almost infinite list of possibilities like that a god created the universe but is the god of some other religion or a being or force or something we don't even have a word for created the universe and didn't found a religion. There are a nearly infinite number of possible hypothetical gods and methods of creation. A god could create life that evolves or have created life as-is, or have created a young earth or an old earth etc, etc, etc. Saying that there are only two possibilities, naturalism or christian theism is like saying there are only two possibilities, the koran is right or atheists are right [insert attack on atheism], therefore everything in the koran is true.

You can't substantiate dozens or hundreds of claims without even discussing them.

As for:

"First, you only THINK that your experiment gave you the same results 50 times in a row. What if the physical laws happened to fluctuate such that actually the results of your experiment were all over the place, but your equipment just so happened to malfunction as the laws were fluctuating so that it gave you the same readings each time?"

Are you saying we should ignore evidence in favor of made up, unsupported speculation? The evidence supports what it supports, no experiment or observation is 100% conclusive but that is the nature of reality. Tearing down what we know doesn't substantiate what we don't know.

As for losing your career for believing in god, that's not how it works. Most scientists in most countries believe in some kind of god, if believing in god ended your career there'd hardly be any scientists around. In reality it's not believing in god that costs you, it's making claims you can't empirically support, ie engaging in quack science. It's the equivalent of a medical researcher claiming a medicine cures cancer with no evidence. If you want to teach kids in school that science says there's a god unless you have some sort of new amazing evidence you are a liar and a fraud. Lying and fraud are shunned in science. Teaching kids in science class that there is no god would be equally shunned, but no scientists are proposing that that I am aware.

@tim223 - I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but could you respond to the questions in the first two paragraphs? I see no difference in using the logic to support thor or the koran as using it to support yahweh.

"There are many origins theories covering the emergence of the universe, but it seems to me that they all boil down to only three categories... supernatural/divine creation, naturalistic eternal-universe, or naturalistic BigBang/spontaneous-emergence-out-of-nothing."

It's important to note that there are not any real scientifically proven "theories" about the ultimate origins of the universe, or if there are they are tentative at best and have to do with very recent experiments to do with vacuum energy which I am not up on and which are not considered settled science. Big bang cosmology doesn't attempt to explain the existence of the universe and it never has, it attempts to explain the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier state after it already existed. Furthermore it is not a hypothetical maybe, the universe is as a matter of observable fact, expanding. The big bang isn't past tense, it's happening right now.

"The eternal-universe theories are ruled out by the laws of Thermodynamics. The most popular theory-family among scientists today are the BigBang theories... but I believe that it is scientifically irrational to believe in them, because they require that the natural laws "worked differently back then" than what we can observe in labs today."

"Laws" of science are not actual laws, nor are they necessarily immutable. Many "laws" of physics have been "broken" or shown to break down, especially under extreme conditions. Newton's laws of motion for instance cease to apply as an object approaches the speed of light and things like gravity actually slow down time and bend space. The "laws" of physics are only universally true in principle and only as far as we have observed. And physicists have known for a long time that extreme physics produce weird behaviors that seem to fly in the face of everyday experience, this is why they build particle accelerators, to generate extreme conditions like those that would have existed closer to the beginning of the universe - the results are the creation of exotic particles and forms of energy that do not normally exist. Now we may, through these sorts of experiments, gain enough insight into the mechanics of the universe to understand how it arose, whether it was created or is a natural occurrence, is eternal or came into existence somehow, or whether the universe we observe is a part of a larger existence that cannot be explained out of context. Whichever way it comes down if scientists used your sort of logic of "well we can't explain it so it must be [insert magic being]" nobody would ever learn anything new. It is only by rejecting thor and zeus as an explanation for lightning that we've come to understand (and harness) electricity. Should we still bleed sick people to get the demons out of them? The bible explicitly states that illness is caused by demons. Should hospitals stop using medicine and start doing exorcisms?

"There are many variations of the divine-creation theory... Babylonian, Egyptian, Norwegian, etc etc, but I refuse to defend any of those because I have never seen any compelling evidence for them. The account in the Bible, however, is different... I believe it is the most reasonable to believe, because I have seen strong evidence for it."

Such as? I'm pretty learned on the subject and I've never seen evidence that I found compelling, or made any one religion stand out above the rest.

["You asked: "Are you saying we should ignore evidence in favor of made up, unsupported speculation?"]

"That is the exact opposite of what I was saying. Please read my post again."

I was responding to you arguing that the results of 50 hypothetical experiments in a row were the result of fluke fluctuations in the properties of physics, with no logical or empirical evidence, advocating the rejection of observational evidence on the grounds of a hypothetical, unsupported assertion.

"Regarding political/career implications, I agree with you that doing 'quack science' is a career-killer."

Do you agree that asserting something based on faith as though it were science is quack science and fraud?

"But I also know that simply believing in the God of the Bible is a career-killer in many countries (not the USA, fortunately)."

What countries?

"I know, because I have visited some of those countries and have friends there. Some of the friends for whom I was writing are from those countries. Also, if someone tries to publish a paper in Science or Nature while mentioning God's creative genius in some newly discovered feature of the natural world, the paper will certainly be rejected."

Yes, making non-scientific assertions in a scientific paper will be rejected. So would saying there is no god. Are atheists being persecuted? Should our public school science books say there is no god? If they don't are christians victimizing atheists?

"But if someone ascribes the feature to evolution, it might well be accepted. This is a double-standard, because both evolution and Biblical creation are historical theories which cannot be tested in the lab in a repeatable sense."

Sure they are. Any prediction about the fossil record, genome sequencing, etc that has the potential to falsify the theory is a valid test of the theory. And many historical claims can be tested as well. You seem to want it both ways, you claim that "The account in the Bible, however, is different... I believe it is the most reasonable to believe, because I have seen strong evidence for it."

And the next moment you claim that "evolution and Biblical creation are historical theories which cannot be tested in the lab in a repeatable sense". You want to claim there is evidence of creation when you're advocating it but then when someone is critical of it you want to claim it can't be tested. You want to inject the supposedly un-testable creationism into the science world while denouncing the supposedly un-testable theory of evolution as quack science. Pick a side. Either creationism is not science (in which case you should have no problem with it being kept out of science journals and science textbooks) or it is science in which case science has the authority to criticize it. The door swings both ways.

"But they are both theories with metaphysical implications. The two theories are thus in the same philosophical category, but one is currently considered acceptable scientific orthodoxy and the other is not."

I'm a science nerd and I'm also honest and objective. I'm an agnostic former christian so I don't play favorites and honestly this is how it is - the idea of a creator, prime mover, first cause etc cannot be tested. Nor can the origins of life by abiogenesis be confirmed (though there is some evidence that supports it to a degree). However that life evolves is readily observable and can be demonstrated experimentally by even high school students, and that it has been evolving for a very, very long time and has changed dramatically is obvious to anyone who looks at the fossil record which shows dramatically different forms of life in each geological period in earth's history - the dinosaurs are the tip of the iceberg by the way. You can argue life was created and then evolved but the only way life could possibly have been created in anything like it's present form is if the entire earth is a forgery, a divine hoax meant to trick us. And that seems a bit paranoid to me.

"Examples abound ( http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 )."

You think people who don't accept evolution are being murdered? And in a nation that is 75% christian where over a hundred million people reject evolution this guy had to self-publish a book about it because nobody would touch it? Honestly, that doesn't seem a bit iffy to you?

"But even if you disagree and think that there is absolutely no pressure against creationism in the contemporary scientific power structure, the point that I was making in the above dialog is that some of my friends PERCEIVE there to be such pressure, even if it actually doesn't exist. Some of my friends really do think that believing in God would hurt their career, whether or not their fear is correct. My advice to those friends is: follow where the evidence leads... follow the truth... even if it hurts your career."

There is pressure in science against dishonesty in any form. Making a claim without evidence may not raise eyebrows when you do it at the pulpit, but when you pass something off as science without doing any actual science you are committing fraud. As I said before this standard is no different than the one atheists or muslims or proponents of psychic powers or anyone else is held to. You can't claim something is scientifically true unless you can provide empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence to bear.

Why is it so offensive to not be able to lie about what is and isn't science? Why do only evangelists have a problem with this?

@tim223 - "Hi Mark, thanks for your feedback. Regarding your question about specific countries with persecution, I prefer not to post that on the internet because of future travel plans and to protect my friends."

I don't see how giving the name of a country could endanger anybody.

"But if you are interested in countries with persecution against Christians, you can find more info at http://www.opendoorsusa.org or other sites."

I didn't ask about persecution of christians, I asked in what countries scientists lose their jobs for not being atheists. The website you listed has no information about that.

"No... but three related points follow... (1) I have not seen any convincing evidence to believe in Thor or the god of the Koran. But I have seen convincing evidence to believe in the God of the Bible (as you recall, we have extensively discussed my reasons before in previous xanga conversations, and I'll hopefully post more in future continuations of this dialog)"

I do not recall those conversations off the top of my head. Could you give a link to jog my memory? And I've seen no such evidence. Many christians even admit there is no such evidence, that it is a matter of faith.

"Hence the logic is not the same."

Can't say until you tell me your evidence, but I doubt it very much.

"(2) Contrary to the lightning example you cited, I don't think the scientific argument that I made was not an argument from ignorance, but rather an argument from the scientific facts observable in the lab. We typically do not see matter/energy arising out of nothing... that's why it's called a "law" of thermodynamics."

Actually recent quantum experiments suggest that vacuums make matter and measurable energy pop into and out of existence constantly. And "laws" of science are sometimes "broken".

"It is not a question about which scientists are ignorant. It is rather a well-known fact of science with centuries of solid experimentation backing it up."

Then why do you crap on it later in this comment and say we have to believe in god or the properties of physics are just assumptions? Again, you're arguing against yourself.

"(3) Regarding your critique of my statement "I'm saying that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be here. Either it all arose spontaneously out of nothing, or God created it all as the Bible describes", I think you raise a valid critique, namely, that I have somewhat of a false dichotomy there. I'd modify it now (and may edit my post to that effect), to something like this: "I'm saying that out of all the explanations for how we came to be here, they really boil down to only two categories: supernatural origin or natural origin. Natural origin is either the 'eternal-universe' theory or the 'everything arose spontaneously out of nothing' theory, both of which are contradicted by scientific evidence. Supernatural origin has many theories for who or what were the Creator God/gods and what His/their character is like, but the only view that I've seen strong evidence for is the Biblical creation account... so that's the view I believe."

I would simplify it even further and say "of all the testable, verifiable explanations for the origins of the universe there are exactly zero."

[You wrote: "Now we may, through these sorts of experiments, gain enough insight..."]

"This sort of "someday the evidence will arise" attitude is precisely what I wrote about in my above post, giving "Sue" this sentiment in the dialog."

No it isn't. I wasn't saying "someday science will prove my views right", I was saying "someday we might understand how the universe began, regardless of whose beliefs it proves". How is it wrong to say that someday perhaps a mystery will be solved?

"Actually, I can somewhat empathize with you... I think that if I had not seen the evidence for Jesus / for the God of the Bible, then I too would be an agnostic and would be holding the same attitude as you about the origin of the universe."

I don't see how you can be anything else.

["You wrote: "Whichever way it comes down if scientists used your sort of logic of "well we can't explain it so it must be [insert magic being]" nobody would ever learn anything new."]

"That is a straw-man argument, hence it needs no rebuttal."

No it isn't. You are saying that science doesn't have a good enough explanation so the religious explanation is right by default. And it's true that if people invoked supernatural beings to pretend to have a handle on everything we would never learn anything new. Imagine if every time a physicist wondered why a certain particle has a certain property they just shrugged and said "I guess god wants it to have that property" and considered the matter solved. Would that be good for scientific progress or bad?

"Also, I notice you did not address my point that a belief that the laws of physics could occasionally change would destroy the rationale for science."

Actually it would destroy life, the planet and the universe. Unless the change were a very minor fluctuation that is.

"So it is actually exactly the opposite of what you claim. A belief in the God of the Bible, instead of destroying the rationale for science, establishes it... because through the Bible we see that God created the world as a generally stable, predictable environment for man to explore and rule."

The properties of physics are a fact deduced and proven by centuries of observation. That yahweh is responsible for them is an unsubstantiated claim. You are literally saying speculation beats observation.

The form of logic you are using is called abductive reasoning, it is basically saying "if X is true it would explain Y therefore X is true." The problem with abductive reasoning is that X is usually not the only explanation and that it's hypothetical power to maybe explain Y does not necessarily make it correct. For example, if the CIA is using me as a guinea pig in a mind control experiment and this is why I can't find my keys, this would explain why I can't find my keys. However it's ability to conveniently explain that fact does not substantiate the claim, and if I made that assertion without a lot of evidence to back it up I would be considered crazy. Abductive reasoning is just blind speculation, it's useful only for generating hypotheses which must then be supported by evidence, tested logically and empirically etc. If we reached conclusions based solely on abductive reasoning we could literally justify believing almost any random notion that popped into our head. Most conspiracy theories are based on this form of reasoning, ie a conspiracy would, if it existed, explain x y and z facts so that "proves" there's a conspiracy.

["You wrote: "It is only by rejecting thor and zeus as an explanation for lightning that we've come to understand (and harness) electricity."]

"Not only is that a straw-man (I have never recommended believing in thor or zeus), but it is full of irony, because if you look at the scientists who actually investigated electricity (Maxwell, Faraday, Henry, Joule, Thompson, etc), many (if not most) of them were Christians."

I didn't claim you believed in thor and those men did not believe in thor either, so it is neither a strawman nor ironic.

["You asked "Should we still bleed sick people to get the demons out of them?"]

"Straw-man. I could just as easily ask you, 'Should we still kill Jews to get rid of 'less-evolved races'? But I will not ask you that. Let us keep the quality of our discussion up to high standards, and stop using straw-man argumentation."

It isn't a strawman to ask a christian who is defending the bible as a factual, historical text if we should take seriously a claim in scripture, any more than it would be a strawman to ask me if a racist idea was valid in a racist book I was defending as accurate. As for the jews comment, there is no such thing as a "less evolved" anything, that concept is incoherent in biology and has never been scientifically valid. The "science" of the third reich was propaganda produced by the political wing and it only flourished because scientists were by force prevented from holding it up to scrutiny.

"No it doesn't. The Bible teaches that certain particular cases of illness were caused by a demon. It does not teach that all (or even most) illnesses were caused by demons. There are places in the Bible where it talks about taking medicines or seeing physicians to get better."

Do you believe exorcisms have medicinal value some of the time? Should we perform them on some patients in hospitals? Do you think they would stand up to double-blind, peer reviewed studies the same way medications do?

"I don't think you're understanding my argument here. I'm saying the following:
(1) Assume for the moment that all the matter/energy of the universe suddenly popped into existence out of nothing."

Okay.

"(2) Assumption (1) implies that we live in an unpredictable universe where anything could physically happen - all the laws of physics might very well be totally different tomorrow or 5 minutes from now than they 'seem to be' right now."

No, that in itself is an assumption. It could be that the initial creation of matter/energy were due to unique or extreme circumstances. Your logic is like saying "if a hammer was forged from red hot metal this means the universe is random and that a hammer might glow red hot and burn me at any moment". The properties of matter, energy and space change under different conditions, the conditions that exist now could be no more conducive to another big bang than a warm day is conducive to a blizzard. If, as new evidence suggests, a vacuum (near total absence of matter) causes quantum particles to pop into existence which exert measurable energy then a vacuum the size of the universe could hypothetically produce the energy of a big bang. The process would stabilize without negating or changing the laws of physics once the matter was spread out and the space was no longer a true vacuum, the same way a fire eventually burns out without negating the laws of physics.

"(3) Beliefs (1) and (2) destroy the foundation for science, which needs an assumption of stability and repeatability in order to make progress."

Science doesn't work because we assume or believe or make pretend the universe behaves in a more or less constant way, it works because it does whether we think so or not. It's observable reality, not a belief or an assumption.

"In order to do science, you must assume that the laws of physics will not change between experiments, or in the middle of an experiment."

That's like saying in order to type this sentence I must assume bigfoot won't jump out of my closet and eat me in the middle of it. I must do no such thing.

My typing the sentence doesn't require me to think or care about bigfoot because it simply doesn't factor into it. If bigfoot attacks me during this sentence I will of course factor that into my thinking and my behavior, but until that happens it's irrelevant. It's the same with a change in reality. However as I've said any sudden, fundamental shift in the basic properties of the universe would most likely be lethal anyway, so honestly who cares.

"So your statement that I am "rejecting observational evidence" is completely missing the point... if you start out by assuming that the laws of physics could change at any time, then there is no reason to think that any "observational evidence" you've seen in the past is relevant to the future."

Again, an observation, not an assumption. In order to love your wife do you have to assume Allah is keeping her from going crazy and trying to murder you day after day? Or in order to think she is pretty do you have to assume that the tooth fairy is stopping her hair from falling out?

Then why, in order to perform an experiment, do I have to assume yahweh is holding the universe together and making it be the way that it is?

"On the other hand:
(4) Now assume for the moment that the Biblical account is true - the universe was created by an all-powerful, loving, wise God who created the world to be a stable, predictable place where His created humans could roam around and enjoy and explore it. (And then the Fall occurred, so now there is pain and death and suffering, but the universe is still a generally predictable environment... and God has started to rescue the universe, as the Bible explains)
(5) Assumption (4) implies that we can do scientific experiments to explore and discover the way God's world works... and in fact several historians have noted that this assumption was exactly what started the scientific revolution in post-Reformation Europe. It is precisely the predictability of the world as described in the Bible which allows science to proceed."

So would assuming brahma created the universe, vishnu is sustaining the universe and shiva will one day destroy the universe. That doesn't make it so. Nor is it a prerequisite for observation and experimentation.

And I don't think the history of the development of science over the last few centuries is that simplistic. I think the invention of the printing press which made modern mass-education and home study of the bible possible (which was probably the single largest catalyst for the reformation itself) was a more likely culprit.

"If by "evolves" you simply mean "changes in the gene pool occur over time, due to random mutations and natural selection", then yes, I would agree. But are those mechanisms and other blind naturalistic mechanisms sufficient to explain the genomes we see today? I will hopefully explore this question in future posts."

To a degree, we don't understand how exactly DNA itself first arose (possibly as a byproduct of RNA based cells), but I think that processes like natural selection are capable of producing virtually any complex mechanism given enough time. We can simulate descent with modification in supercomputers and design stronger bridges and more stable airplane wings. Once you understand how and why it works I don't think it has many limitations.

"This is an interesting point you raise. There is a key distinction between forensic (historical, origins) science and observational (nomological) science. Both Biblical creation and Abiogenesis/BigBang/NaturalisticGenerationOfTheInformationInTheModernGenomes belong in the forensic-science category, in that they cannot be tested in the lab or seen repeatedly to occur today. Historical claims can be tested, yes, but not in the same way that gravity or electromagnetism can be tested (repeatably, observably, in the lab)."

I think it depends on the claim. If for instance you have a claim about geology and make a prediction about the properties of ice layers, you can repeatably test that by taking core samples from different glaciers around the world. You can also find multiple ways to test the same idea. Every time we sequence a genome scientist make evolutionary predictions and test them for accuracy. Every time we dig up a fossil it must conform to over a century of evolutionary predictions and biological principles. Here are some examples of evolutionary predictions/tests (described by a catholic scientist by the way):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

The reason these are valid tests is that they are predictions which a) are unknown at the time of the prediction and b) have the potential to falsify the hypothesis.

"The problem I have with the secular bias in the scientific establishment is not with "pressure against dishonesty"."

There is no "secular bias". The majority of scientists are theists, how are the majority biased against themselves?

"I think it's good to have pressure against dishonesty. The problem is the double-standard in interpretation of the facts. For example, let's say an evolutionist and a creationist are trying to publish an article in Nature about some new feature in the world, like a molecular Brownian ratchet that harvests energy to perform protein transportation in the cell. The creationist or the evolutionist could both describe the feature and their experiments... fine. Up until there, no problem. That is observational (nomological) science."

Actually there is a problem - there are countless evolution experiments and observations but there is literally no such thing as an intelligent design experiment. What experiment has ever been proposed by an ID advocate that has the potential to falsify the hypothesis of an intelligent designer?

"But as soon as a historical interpretive framework is applied, it moves into the realm of forensic science. For example, the evolutionist might talk about "conservation" of the mechanism from some assumed ancestor."

Vestigial traits are extremely common throughout the animal kingdom and are an accepted idea based on many avenues of evidence. They are an observed part of nature and a fact of biology.

"The creationist might talk about how amazing is God's wisdom in designing that feature."

And if he can't substantiate that claim it doesn't belong in a scientific paper. Bear in mind scientists are perfectly free to espouse their religious views, philosophical views etc, just as richard dawkins is free to espouse his atheistic views. What they are not allowed to do is lie and claim it's science when it's not.

"Both of these types of interpretive statement are no longer nomological science, but forensic science. The contemporary scientific power-structure encourages the secular interpretation (e.g. in the Discussion section of the paper), and censors the creationist interpretation. That is the double-standard. I am quite familiar with the scientific publishing process, having published several peer-reviewed scientific articles."

It's not the "secular" interpretation, it's the scientific consensus. Show me a peer reviewed paper in any scientific journal that talks about how there is no god and religion is bullshit. If you can show me that then you can talk about a double standard. But until then it's just christians wanting to flaunt the professional ethics that apply to everyone else while feigning persecution.

"So hopefully you can see that I have no complaint about these magazines holding high scientific standards. The problem is the biased/censoring interpretive framework. And by the way, the solution is not to push creationism, but to simply allow the controversy and stop the censorship. As John Scopes said -
"If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought.... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."

You think that the christian perspective is silenced in america? Presenting religion as science is dishonest. It's lying. As I said, should we teach atheism in science class? Should churches be forced to give atheists and scientists equal time as their preachers in the name of "fairness"? Should islam and hinduism and wicca and every other religion be taught in science class? Or should they all be "censored" in the name of "fairness" toward christians?

NOBODY is trying to get their religious views injected into science classes or peer reviewed journals except christians. Christians are no more being persecuted than atheists or anybody else, they just want to inject their ideology into every facet of everyone else's life. They see anything that isn't christian as a threat. That's their paranoia, it's not reality.

"Hi Mark, Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. You mentioned that you didn't remember our previous xanga conversations off the top of your head and asked for some links, so here are some links."

I notice that in nearly all of those conversations you walked away, ignored arguments and/or had no counter point to my rebuttals to your evidence.

"Regarding the Ken Miller video links you sent me, I have watched them before... he makes extremely weak arguments... here are two succinct and cogent answers to his argument. http://creation.com/human-ape-fused-chromosomes-paradigm http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392"

Ken miller is a well respected and very accomplished cell biologist. The authors of those articles have no expertise in any field of life science.

To quote the bio of each person:

"Dominic is a Chartered Engineer and graduate of Loughborough University in the UK. He has extensive experience of both manufacturing and product development and holds a number of patents. As an employee of Rolls Royce, he worked on projects for the Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon and, as an employee of GKN, engineering drivelines for Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles."

"Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in both science and law. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego. His Law Degree is from the University of San Diego. In his role at Discovery Institute, Mr. Luskin works as Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture. He formerly conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography (1997-2002)."

He has a minor degree in earth science, as opposed to life science. These people are no more qualified to contradict the scientific consensus than an engineer is to diagnose a serious illness or a plumber is to fix your car.

As for their arguments, they're both BS. The reason the fusion of two primate chromosomes is compelling evidence for common ancestry is because the theory of common ancestry is what allowed us to make the prediction (and many, many others) in the first place, predictions which, if they were wrong, would falsify the theory. If these jerk off wannabe "scientists" want to engage in actual science they are free to posit their hypothesis and make experimental predictions which have the potential to falsify it and let the chips fall where they may. Know why they don't? Because it's already been done. Scientists proposed that all humans descended from a few people 4400 years ago (the flood) and made predictions, all of which were contradicted by advances in genetics, archeology, geology and many other fields. This is why the best creation "science" can muster is highly religious non-experts writing non-peer reviewed, catty articles containing conjecture and no actual science on partisan websites.

"If I found a note lying on the table saying "Hi Tim", and you suggested that it might have been written by an 'intelligent designer', and I kept insisting that it had actually been generated by random natural processes and that your ID argument that was an 'abduction argument' and an 'argument of the gaps' and 'unfalsifiable', what 'falsifiable experiment' would you propose to support the idea that a person had indeed written the note?"

So intelligent design is the hypothesis that human languages were designed by humans? Grow up and just admit there's no such thing as an ID experiment and that it's religion (philosophy at best), not science. Pretending that ID is about testing whether man-made things are man-made is just childish.