Replies

Scientifically gathered data, such as fossils and DNA analysis, is objective in that it is tangible and real. Scientists may disagree as to what it means and how to interpret it, but it exists. ID has no means of gathering data that can be measured in the real world. Therefore, all claims of ID are subjective.

Perfect. You have argued that it is not possible to develop general theories from phenomenon. That argument must also apply to the general theory of evolution. You can not allow one and dismiss the other with the same argument.

Of course, it is reasonalbe to draw theoretical inferences and theories from data. ID is precisely that. In fact, it is more. ID affirms the very collection of data because it is coherent with the act of science as rational, reasoned activity.

There is no evidence for evolution in a priori assumptions. It is, in a clearer sense than is ID, a theory.

No. I haven't argued that is impossible to develop general theories from phenomena. Phenomena are events that can be observed. We can gather data from them and can debate what that means.

Evolutionary science, like all fields of science, is the gathering of data through different means. The theory is used to explain the data. The theory fits. And you just said that it is reasonable to make inferences and theories to explain the data. That's all evolutionary theory is doing. As far as I'm concerned, it's only the scientific explanation for God's creation.

ID just doesn't have any means of gathering data for measuring design. As long as that remains so, it cannot be accepted as a science. But ID can still be true as a metaphysical idea. Unfortunately, God likes to keep secrets.