“Scientific theories arise frrm induction, not deduction. Science is speculative.
I will allow that the “d” and the “e” should be replaced by the “i” and the “n”. But let us not be distracted by minor errors involving labels, the underlying concepts are well understood.
“The difference between science and ID is not in the kind of reasoning involved in forming hypotheses, but in whether the hypotheses have consequenses that can be confirmed or contradicted by evidence.”
I have addressed this point above, and if it is the basis for any opposition to ID, it demands opposition to the theory of evolution.
Remember, the major gist of this whole argument is not to define the difference between science and ID, but to debate whether ID is appropriate and tenable. So far, it reaches the standards which uphold the theory of evolution.
ID is not in opposition to evolution. The most well known advocates of ID accept evolution as a given.
The problem with ID is it promiscuous. It sleeps with fundamentalists and Darwinists on the same night. It is not discriminating and has no way of being discriminating.