It's interesting that you didn't include Copenhagen interpretation and its derivative, Orch OR. The partial list you provided are individual hypotheses.

They are positive proposals.

Even if they're positive proposals, the moment we use MWI or Multiverse to 'explain' OoL or fine-tuning or other events of apparently extraordinarily low probability, it's right up there with 'GodDidIt'. I was expressing some eye-rolling at the idea that (some? most? all?) ID proponents 'aren't surprised by anything because they believe in God and God can do anything', with it implied that committed naturalists don't have a similar view with regards to 'unguided chance'.

I didn't bring in Copenhagen or Orch-OR because I've never seen them specifically used to explain these things in professional circles.

While I wouldn't call it steady-state, I suspect the more religiously oriented individuals would, since is doesn't assume a GodDidIt premise.

I've seen and responded to the cyclic model before - I don't think the ex nihilo Big Bang assumes a GodDidIt premise. If anything, it tentatively demonstrated that yes, the entire known universe can burst/unfold into existence in a dramatic way. A scientific establishment that took the attitude of 'if it sounds Godlike, it can't be true' ate some crow, but them's the breaks.

I can think of several reasons theists would happily embrace a cyclic model of cosmology. In fact, if it wasn't past-eternal (and from what I've read, that's a big issue with the cyclic models) I think some would downright adore it.

However, it is possible offer a scientific model based on a presumed existance of God. In other words, suggesting the existance of God as a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis.

I am utterly, completely, entirely skeptical of this. The number of pitfalls to the very idea are tremendous, even if God's existence is an utter brute fact.

I may support ID endeavors, and have great philosophical sympathy for the view - I'm a Catholic, and quite an orthodox one in belief - but I know when a wall is hit.

I understand you embrace NOMA and wouldn't intentionally mix a philosophical belief in God with scientific arguments. However, I am not as convinced that other ID proponents tend to be careful in making that distinction (other than to make negative attacks against their opponents).

Depends on your definition of NOMA. I think science can certainly inform a philosophical argument, but I prefer the distinction be made clear. As for other ID proponents - maybe so. I wasn't denying as much. Just denying that many naturalist ID opponents don't worship at the altar of some almighty force that can do the miraculous. They just don't believe it's a being, or conscious.

You wrote…

I've seen professionals try to explain away everything from the Origin of Life to cosmological fine-tuning as the result of the many-worlds interpretation, multiverses, or a steady-state universe.

It's interesting that you didn't include Copenhagen interpretation and its derivative, Orch OR. The partial list you provided are individual hypotheses.

They are positive proposals. I happen to disagree with the Many-worlds interpretation. Multiverse is a metaphysical stance. The steady-state universe has been pretty much falsified. However, Penrose has offered BEFORE THE BIG BANG: AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS. While I wouldn't call it steady-state, I suspect the more religiously oriented individuals would, since is doesn't assume a GodDidIt premise.

Assuming the existance of God can be thought of as just a philosophical perspective (e.g. Ken Miller). However, it is possible offer a scientific model based on a presumed existance of God. In other words, suggesting the existance of God as a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis.

I understand you embrace NOMA and wouldn't intentionally mix a philosophical belief in God with scientific arguments. However, I am not as convinced that other ID proponents tend to be careful in making that distinction (other than to make negative attacks against their opponents).

This demonstrates once again that ID is not a scientific theory. It's defined strictly as a negative of something and has nothing whatsoever to say on its own. When we asked "what constitutes success in ID?" the answer was a failure of physical cosmology, evolutionary biology etc. Now you tie the downfall of ID to success of natural biogenesis.

Why do you perceive it a failure? Science ought to be a search for what actually happened rather than a protector of establshed paradigms like abiogenesis. The only failure, when viewed from this perspective, is insistence on the same old failed approaches. A change in cosmological theories should not be seen as a failure if the changes are pegged to new data. A positve indicator as to which approach to origin of life is accurate is a measurement of the stability of uncelled nucleic acids; the changes of which would provide the basis for selection. Any randomly acquired sequential patterns of codons, conferring basic enzymatic function, would need to accumulate and be conserved- a process currently made possible by error correction cellular mechanisms. In their absence reversion of functional patterns to biologically useless random sequences would occur. That spells doom for standard abiogenesis concepts and entails measurable changes. The only failure would be a refusal to accept unwelcome data.

There are of course contradictory scenarios to my ID beliefs. The demonstration that chemical pathways lead to cells would surely be one. If that were demonstrated I would accept the evidence like I accept the fact that my pencil will fall to the floor when pushed off my desk.

This demonstrates once again that ID is not a scientific theory. It's defined strictly as a negative of something and has nothing whatsoever to say on its own. When we asked "what constitutes success in ID?" the answer was a failure of physical cosmology, evolutionary biology etc. Now you tie the downfall of ID to success of natural biogenesis.

It seems like it's impossible to tell what ID is, but only what it is not.

Todd B: Since the God-did-it theory predates all evidence (its at least what, a ten thousand year old theory?) the worst thing any amount of contradictory evidence will ever do is cause them to once again rename the movement.

How absurd. I accept 99+% of standard scientific claims as valid, including what we refer to as laws, and still believe that God is the causal factor for all of them. There are of course contradictory scenarios to my ID beliefs. The demonstration that chemical pathways lead to cells would surely be one. If that were demonstrated I would accept the evidence like I accept the fact that my pencil will fall to the floor when pushed off my desk. The problem lies with the anti-ID movement which mischaracterizes the beliefs of those who do not toe to standard lines.

And since the Designer can do anything any and all evidence fits what he might do anyway. I think the weakness of ID is that nothing could possibly shock them or falsify their beliefs.

As opposed to what? I've seen professionals try to explain away everything from the Origin of Life to cosmological fine-tuning as the result of the many-worlds interpretation, multiverses, or a steady-state universe. The engines of 'miracle' are alive and well in those views; absolutely anything can happen, and if a particular thing certainly does happen, it must be filed under natural or material as a matter of course. And asking about what would qualify as unnatural (or supernatural, or subnatural) or nonmaterial gets, if anything, some impatient huffing.

Or how about we have a look at 'chance' or 'unguided' - those properties of action/events that get rallied so often, yet are themselves utterly beyond proof and only referred to as superfluous a priori assumptions?

Nothing precludes the self-described naturalist from absorbing into their worldview every single event, no matter how amazing or unlikely, that the person who believes in design can absorb. About the only required difference would be which label gets slapped on whatever's observed.

It's obvious that mainstream science did not expect this. Do you think ID proponents were similarly shocked?

I don't think any conceivable evidence would shock ID proponents. Since the God-did-it theory predates all evidence (its at least what, a ten thousand year old theory?) the worst thing any amount of contradictory evidence will ever do is cause them to once again rename the movement. And since the Designer can do anything any and all evidence fits what he might do anyway. I think the weakness of ID is that nothing could possibly shock them or falsify their beliefs.

Did I miss the spot-on ID prediction

I'm confused are you saying that ID would not have predicted that the first animal would be more complex than we thought or are you just saying that ID scientists are incompetent for not making the precise prediction?

It's obvious that mainstream science did not expect this. Do you think ID proponents were similarly shocked?

Peace

Did I miss the spot-on ID prediction that

Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge?

I'd appreciate your pointing me to the reference.

I suppose you should claim victory then.

Come on Olget despite your rough exterior I just know that you like to talk about ideas and not just the same ole culture war stuff.

Maybe I'm just an eternal optimist I also think that the KC Chiefs might have a chance this year.

Speaking of ideas and predictions which idea do you think would have predicted this?

http://www.livescience.com/ani...

Peace