[js1138]

It is always reasonable to challenge accepted theories, but that is not what ID is doing.

ID is challenging the premise that science can search for natural causes. It is basically saying that something has the appearance of design it cannot possibly have arisen from natural processes.

It is not simply about who is right and who is wrong. It is about procedure. How do we investigate things that are currently unexplained.

The procedures of scientific research assume that natural causes can be found. I don't know what procedures ID suggests because the leaders of the movement have admitted having no research program. I suspect they can never have a research program, because once you assume a supernatural cause, you have ended curiosity.

[rob777]

It is basically saying that something has the appearance of design it cannot possibly have arisen from natural processes.






Actually, it is saying that the appearance of design is far more likely to have been a result of design than by random processes(I will not go into here the argument over what constitutes a "natural" process). Anything is possible, but some things are more probable. This is the same argument that Aristotle made against a theory similar to random evolution held by certain Pre-Socratics.

[NJ_gent]

"once you assume a supernatural cause, you have ended curiosity."

Nothing is so dangerous to the scientific advancement of a culture than this. It is human curiosity and the drive to understand that has propelled us so far beyond any other animal on the face of the Earth.