Science can test the materials and their properties. The results are expected to be repeatable, etc. The same results, however can be applied equally to either model. So how could one discriminate and call one set of tests "scientific" and the other "religious".?
When you add things to the question/hypothesis, you must test those things.
So when one adds "this all happened by random natural forces without any intelligent agent involved" to the hypothesis, one needs to add it to the experiment as well.
OK. Do you have an example of a hypothesis in evolution where the researcher specifically states that an intelligent agent is not involved?
Saying, "An intelligent agent is not involved in the establishment of energy transfer pathways by iron sulfides" is not the same thing as saying "I am not or cannot test for an intelligent agent". This may seem like semantics to you, but it is not really. Until we can come up with a test that can reveal God, we can't include Him in our hypotheses.
You are assuming that God is written out of the equation altogether by the way the hypothesis is worded. The exact sequence of events written in Genesis may be excluded, but God is not, He is just not tested for. The hypothesis "Iron sulfides....blah, blah, blah" only describes what may have happened. Since scientists have not been able to design an experiment to provide evidence that differentiate God's hand from naturally occurring factors, they cannot say in the experiment's conclusion that God, Ra, Juno, Shiva or Allah manipulated the iron and sulfur together to form the first primitive energy pathways. It would not be a conclusion drawn from the evidence, therefore not scientific.
My point is that all of these experiments would be perfectly valid if they were conducted for ID research. All the hypotheses apply equally well. Because they are interpreted in an atheist framework, they are perceived as only supporting atheist abiogenesis. The truth is, they support ID just as much, and ID has equal claim to the results. So when people ask if ID is science, well, it's got the same body of work backing it up as atheist abiogenesis.
What I am saying is that abiogenesis is not necessarily atheist. It just doesn't look for a Designer that we don't know how to find in any kind of repeatable experiment. Back to gravity. Gravitational experiments don't look for God and don't reference Him in their hypotheses. Does that make gravitational experiments atheistic? I don't think so.
If ID scientists are experimenting to find out how chemicals may have been combined to form the first primitive replicating molecules, that's is science. That's one of those funny things about science, anybody can do it no matter what they believe. It's when they add the Designer putting those chemicals together that they either move away from science or must test for the Designer.
Have ID scientists produced an experiment that tests for a designer?
All that's really being tested is how chemicals behave under certain conditions, nothing more.
There is no testable atheistic abiogenesis hypothesis. They have no viable science which applies exclusively to their belief.
Exactly!!! An atheist chemist studying abiogenesis cannot apply atheism to his experiment any more than his partner who happens to be a Hindu or the Christian chemist who tries to repeat their experiment can apply their Gods to the experiment.
The atheist can't say "this shows that God does not exist".
The Hindu cannot say "this shows Shiva started life with fire".
The Christian cannot say "this shows God mixed the chemicals together"
What they can, and do, say is "These chemicals could have mixed this way and produced the first replicating molecules." Gods are not added or taken away because they weren't tested for.
Now when atheist abiogenesis devises an experiment or hypothesis which distinguishes it from ID, they might be able to claim to have a monopoly.
That is assuming that the "atheist" claims to have a monopoly. Saying "I see no god at work here" is not the same as saying "There is no god at work here".
Otherwise, they should be honest and admit that ID is their equal.
This is where things fall a little flat. ID's basic hypothesis is that there is a Designer. If an ID believer does experiments that don't look for the Designer then he is not working in ID. He is just doing the science that everyone else does.
Example: A doctor is trained in oncology (cancer research). If he claims to be an oncologist but does research in gynecology then he is doing nothing to advance the knowledge toward a cure for cancer.
In the same way, if a scientist does experiments that don't look for identifiable signs of the Designer then he is doing nothing to advance the field of ID. It doesn't matter how well he does his experiments.
ID is not science unless they have a hypothesis that evidence may be able to falsify. Until they provide that hypothesis and perform experiments that try to falsify it, but doesn't falsify it, ID cannot be taught as a viable hypothesis.
