If science is not a "harbinger of truth", then why do ID backers want to insist it IS a scientific theory? Can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure they do. What they allege is that from a purely scientific standpoint, most theories in regardo to evolution are not science but conjecture.
And the conjecture that life is simply too complex to have happened by chance is at least as solid a scientific theory as a conjecture that it did. Indeed from a purely statistical analysis the odds are about 10100 to one against the conjecture that it happened sponataneously. Indeed, the odds are probably not even that good. And if it didn't happen by chance, then it had to happen by design. Those are the two possibilities. Unless you can come up with a viable third alternative.
I'm listening.
BTW what kind of Guitar do you play?
Science is an exercise and a human endeavor and one can define a particular belief as supported by science and be dishonest. The debate really isn't that ID does this but that proponents of ID claim that the academics defending the modern synthesis of evolution do this.
This article sums it up nicely.
The quite beneficial goal of the ID movement is to push science back into the limited magisterium to which it belongs and make it is acceptible again to credit God with taking an active role in His creation.