"The more you get to wave this silly notion that ID is somehow scientifically respectable because of an unlikely thought experiment whose details you refuse to specify, the more propaganda points you get with the scientifically illiterate."
There you go again, jumping to conclusions without all the facts. My objective has been two fold. First I have replied to an ongoing contention against ID, namely that it makes no falsifiable predictions. I have made a falsifiable prediction. Like it or not, it is falsifiable, regardless of how you wish to interpret it.
I also am contributing to a fictional work in which the antagonist uses ID to placate conservative voters and get illicit money from religiously motivated book publishers. I'm sure you'll like it. Perhaps you may discover some of your ideas expressed by the ID opponents. (Sorry, ideas are not protected by copyright law. No royalties will follow. But thanks for your contributions.)
I have found the discussion interesting even if the writing never makes it to market.
There you go again, jumping to conclusions without all the facts.
huh. Just like natural sciences operate. It's the conclusion I'd rather jump to, all else being equal, much as a mother or a zealous watchdog jumps to the conclusion that a sudden move in the direction of their youngsters by a disreputable looking stranger is probably hostile.
My objective has been two fold. First I have replied to an ongoing contention against ID, namely that it makes no falsifiable predictions. I have made a falsifiable prediction. Like it or not, it is falsifiable, regardless of how you wish to interpret it.
Yea, yea, it's potentially falsifiable, to some slight degree, just as it's potentially science, to some slight degee. Much like crystal pyramid healing is a science, to some slight degree. That and two nickles will buy you a dime.