In fact, I argue that CSI can mean at least two things

1. An intelligent design hypothesis may exist.
2. A natural design hypothesis may exist.

Lacking any way to describe the relative probability of 1 versus 2, ID can at most infer “we don’t know”.

False positives are a major concern for the explanatory filter as they would render the filter useless and unreliable. It’s the inevitable nature of false positives combined with the eliminative approach which makes ID powerless to compete with ‘we don’t know’

If ID cannot show that this set is not empty then all they have done is potentially defined Design to be an empty set.

Not so - they would only have shown that their efforts have not been successful. Logically, the set still may or may not be empty.

To be successful, an experiment o test has to
be sufficiently sensitive to test for the hypothesis, and satisfy the model parameters, including looking in the right place and lookin at the right time. False negatives do not disprove ID. ID tries to model methods to show positive correlation of empirical evidence with the model (Complex Specified Complexity) to a sufficent degree that is reasonbly beyond any possibility of law or chance in the known universe over all time at the fastest possible rates or equivalent number of operations. e.g., parts per 10^120.

Hagge: 33. PVM asks “explain why we should accept position 2.2, that intelligent design is the residue of elimation of chance and regularity?” Your dismissal of ID based on statement of the presupposition evidences hasty superficial response, conflating theory with hypothesis.

On the contrary, it shows a major disagreement with a main premise. If ID cannot show that this set is not empty then all they have done is potentially defined Design to be an empty set. In other words, any event that would trigger the design inference would be likely to be a false positive.

I am trying to state the presuppositions, to lay the foundation on which to base and test hypotheses. ie.
Presupposition:

2.2 Intelligent cause may be distinguishable from law or chance: ID

This is saying ID PRESUPPOSES that it MAY BE POSSIBLE to distinguish an intelligent cause from law or chance, based upon empirical evidence.
This explicitly DOES NOT SAY that a hypothesis has/has not been made, NOR whether that hypothesis has been tested.
This PRESUPPOSITION is made to explicitly counter atheists and others who try to a priori impose methodological naturalism i.e., that we can ONLY study non-intelligent natural causes.

So do you accept that ID makes this presupposition, and that its subsequent hypotheses are made based on this PRESUPPOSITION?
(NOT that you or others hold this.)

I have a few questions for Hannah and any other IDEA club member:

I’d be happy to answer your questions, but this is not an IDEA Club weblog and the thread you’re on is not related to the age of the earth, so you’ll have to ask them elsewhere.

Does IDEA take a position on the age of the earth?

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily even related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor is it even related to the validity of religions, including Christianity. For this reason, IDEA finds no reasons from its mission statement to make any statements about the age of the earth.

If you believe the age of the earth is not related to the validity of evolutionary theory, could you please explain why?

If you believe the age of the earth is related to the validity of evolutionary theory, could you please explain why the IDEA Center claims it isn’t?

Could you please explain why an organization not willing to make a statement about the age of the earth would not fundamentally be an anti-scientific organization?

I will take credit for introducing that, but so subtly you probably didn’t notice.

Yet I see Hannah being interrogated. I don’t think that’s appropriate. We are here to argue our case before them, not to interrogate them.

With respect to this course, Hannah is not a student, but as Allen MacNeill states:

Hannah/Cornell/Junior/invited guest, CU IDEA Club/chemistry & physics

I suggest if someone wishes not to be interrogated, they refrain from making assertions they may be asked to defend.