[MacDorcha]

"No, but if a belief has, as part of a tenet, any religious content, then it's not science."

Ok then, according to that:

Darwin makes the assertion of a Creator in his writing (The Origin of the Species, duh)

This makes his (and all findings based on such) theories and discoveries "not scientific"

[Dimensio]

Darwin makes the assertion of a Creator in his writing (The Origin of the Species, duh)

This makes his (and all findings based on such) theories and discoveries "not scientific"

Uh, no. Darwin was speculating on the origin of the first life forms from which evolution began. His speculation is not scientific, because it invokes the supernatural, but this speculation was not part of the theory of evolution, and thus it has no bearing on whether or not the theory itself is scientific.

If ID has, as was stated before, a tenet as part of the ID explanation that a God could have been responsible for anything, then ID is not scientific. If ID mentions the deity of a specific religion, then ID distances itself even further from science and becomes an outright religious statement.