You seem to think that the maligning is a one-way street. I have heard ID folks say plenty of malign things about those who accept evolutionary theory.
My point about ID is simply that those who seek acceptance of it for purposes of science as opposed to other disciplines have no chance of success until they proceed in accordance with the scientific method.
[[You seem to think that the maligning is a one-way street. I have heard ID folks say plenty of malign things about those who accept evolutionary theory]]
Nope I donm’t think it’s a one way street- but the majority of maligning does coem from Macroevolution advocates who have no scientific support for the idea of Macroevolution- their only hope is to malign and try to assasinate hte character of those presentign hte scientific evidences showing that Macroevolution is biologically impossible, and showing furhter evidence that the design witnessed in nature indicates a strong possibility of an intelligent causation.
[[My point about ID is simply that those who seek acceptance of it for purposes of science as opposed to other disciplines have no chance of success until they proceed in accordance with the scientific method.]]
Your point was understood from the begiining- no need to explain to me what you intended- it is clear that you ignore the scientific facts presented by ID, ignore the fact that they do empiracle science (Which is a scientific standard that is LACKING in macroevolution hypothesis- which by your account should render Macroevolution an unscientific endeavor, and show ID to a the more strictly scientific discipline) and you ignore or simply are unaware of the sceicne that is actually conducted with ID.
The simple fact is that ID meets every ‘guideline’, every disciplined requirement, yet those who reject it do so based purely on unscientific bias and preference for hteir own scientifically unsupported, untestable, unfalsifiable ‘science’ that is based purely on assumptions and guesses and imaginary scenarios. And no matter how many times you and others repeat your accusations- the facts do not change, and ID remains a more strictly scientific method that does Macroevolution. The ev9idences found in nature point much more strongly to ID and discontinuity than it does to common descent ‘with modification’, and that is a fact.