ID IS a scientific theory, and many scientists have said so (even IF it's true that Behe did not).
ID is not a scientific theory. A court of law has ruled it it is not. 99+% of scientists say it is not. Some of it's leading proponents admit it is not unless the definition of science is changed, which means they admit it is not a scientific theory. To date it meets none of the criteria a scientific theory must meet - ID is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it has no predictive value.
You repeating it is a scientific theory over and over again doesn't make it true. And what a handful of disingenuous religiously motivated scientists say won't make it true either. Until ID meets the criteria that a scientific theory must meet it is useless other than as a philosophical/theological idea.
Wishful thinking that at some time in the future ID will become an accepted scientific theory is based on nothing but fantasy. If ID still cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, and cannot predict anything 10, 20, or 50 years from now, it will remain what it is, useless.
>>>ID is not a scientific theory. A court of law has ruled it it is not. 99+% of scientists say it is not. Some of it's leading proponents admit it is not unless the definition of science is changed, which means they admit it is not a scientific theory. To date it meets none of the criteria a scientific theory must meet - ID is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it has no predictive value.<<<
Well, do you really want to appeal to something irrational?
You are appealling ad populum, which is a logical fallacy.
Ironic that Science is rejecting reason, when they claim Theism can't be rational. (Theism is Rational, it is Material Monism that is irrational in the most basic). Science appeals to empiricism, which isn't reason.
Just because most scientists reject something, doesn't mean that they are right. A great example is that for most of recorded history it was accepted by scientists that the atom was unsplitable. Guess what? 99%+ were wrong.
>>>You repeating it is a scientific theory over and over again doesn't make it true. And what a handful of disingenuous religiously motivated scientists say won't make it true either. Until ID meets the criteria that a scientific theory must meet it is useless other than as a philosophical/theological idea.<<<
The problem is that science refuses to justify it's priori of Naturalism in the most basic. Science assumes it. First anything from Theism to Biology must have it's worldview rational otherwise it is basing it's conclusions on faulty foundation.
>>>Wishful thinking that at some time in the future ID will become an accepted scientific theory is based on nothing but fantasy. If ID still cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, and cannot predict anything 10, 20, or 50 years from now, it will remain what it is, useless.<<<
I doubt that. The tide has turned. If there was no threat Material Monist Scientists wouldn't be fighting so hard against allowing it into the peer journals. Rather, they would just allow it and then next month ridicule it. Scientists can't afford that, because ID would put more holes into Evolution than rationalism does Material Monism.