Yes. It would prevent someone from babbling: "You don't know where the universe came from, so Darwin's evolution is all hokum!" Alas, there is a never-ending supply of fresh posters who think exactly that way, and we all grow weary of correcting them.
I do not however believe we will ever be able to have a discussion about intelligent design without it becoming multi-discipline. Related subjects that have a bearing on the issue - such as consciousness - will delve into psychology, philosophy, theology, physics, biology, etc. Further, the state-of-the-art in science is multi-discipline. Information theory and mathematics in molecular biology, cosmology and directed panspermia in evolution, quantum mechanics and physics in biology, etc.
True. ID, like theology, purports to cover everything, and its supporters have the burden of showing that everything is the result of ID (and is impossible to have developed by natural means) which is a bit daunting. But the proponents of ID can, whenever they're in trouble on one issue, leap to a totally different field and bring up another example of ID. We end up with scattered discussions that never go anywhere. Better to focus on a few well-worn areas, like biology.
IMHO, the most helpful statements in these debates come when a poster essentially says something like "the material world is all that there is" or "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God". Once they have made such a declaration, there is really no point in belaboring a point that is totally repugnant to their worldview.
Helpful? Yes, but only because that way we know whether it's useful to try to engage the person in any conversatoin at all. (That's why my "virtual ignore" list is so long.)
IMHO, whenever anyone demands proof of intelligent design, the result will be a multi-discipline discussion. The evidence cannot be seen wearing a blindfold.
But the proponents of ID can, whenever they're in trouble on one issue, leap to a totally different field and bring up another example of ID.
I am a proponent of ID and have never felt in trouble on any issue and I have no recollection whatsoever of changing the subject. Do you have any example of where I have? If so, would you point it out so I can learn from it.
Yes, but only because that way we know whether it's useful to try to engage the person in any conversatoin at all.
Exactly. None of us would try to persuade a person who does not speak our language or is mentally handicapped. Not only is it futile, getting angry about it is unseemly. IMHO, it is better to make our own case on its merits and then back out of the discussion.