Applying the Scientific Method to the anti-ID position
1-Observe some aspect of the universe
2-Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3-Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4-Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5-Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions”
The question is How can we apply the aforementioned "scientific method" to the anti-ID position?
I will strat it off:
1-We observe that the Earth appears to be unique in that it has and supports complex living organisms. We have also observed other systems and it does appear that our solar system is also unique in that those other systems are not like ours.
Now let's see if any anti-IDists chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.
Don't like cosmology? OK here is one from biology:
1- We observe a diversity of living organisms on this planet. We also observe a diversity in the fossil record.
Now let's see if any anti-IDists will chime in to fill in the rest of the steps such that in the end we have some sort of scientific inference for their position.
My prediction- no one will or what will be presented will be absolute nonsense. I say that because it is obvious the anti-IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards. Who like the cowardly monlies they mimic, can only sit up high in their trees and hurl stuff at the people trying to figure out the reality behind our existence.
* for the record I agree with the NCSE supported UBerkley site which states:
There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”
If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”
But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”