Wow. They must be a powerful bunch. But don't worry. Remember, words and ideas don't have consequences, and have no effect upon science or its implications.
Meanwhile, would you please explain to me what is unscientific about intelligent design? Try not to use any words or information lest you make yourself a case in point.
I already have:
"Let's see if ID is science. From a previous post:
'Is ID...:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?'
The Designer is not naturalistic; ID has already made that as a claim of their 'theory.' Since the Designer's not naturalistic, science can make no objective predictions of the Designer nor can science falsify the Designer. Thus, the Designer and the theory are neither falsifiable nor naturalistic. The falsifiable components, CSI and IC, have been meticulously falsified by TalkOrigins, Kenneth Miller, and many other biologists.
It's not tentative - ID assumed the conclusion, provided 'evidence' for it, and concluded the assumption.
It's not parsimonius; they have to invoke an intelligent Designer to explain the diversity of life when evolution is very successful at doing that already also. They have to explain how an Intelligent Designer would make 98.5% of our genome and many other organisms consists of ERVS, noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. They also have to complicate matters by explaining how chimps and humans have identical ERV insertions. All they can do is say, 'That's what the Designer wanted.'
It doesn't make accurate predictions; IC is falsified, CSI is falsified, and other than that, ID doesn't even attempt to make specific, risky predictions. It produces no research.
It's not encompassing. It doesn't explain identical ERV insertions, or chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 in humans, or why all the evidence points towards evolution. When relativity replaced newtonian physics, it had to account for why so many predictions of Newtonian physics were accurate. ID doesn't even attempt to do that.
And finally, it's not supported. The evidence they have? Negative, misinformed arguments against evolution mostly. The only postive arguments? CSI and IC, both of which have been falsified."
Why do you ignore posts directly on point to you? Tos has been amswered multiple times. Please don't put me in a position to quote the posts that have provded you exactly the information that you ignore.
It will be embarrasing for you.