[Rudder]

And "logical reasoning," while seductive, is not the foundation of a science---data are.
"Your statement is self-refuting"

Not really. One can make beautfiully logical arguments based upon false premises, as in the case of ID. These do not belong in science. That's why science relies upon empirical data and not upon heroic efforts of rhetorical persuasion.

[Diamond]

The statement is self-refuting because it itself is not a statement of science, it is a philosophical statement about science. It is not pure "data". It is a metaphysical proposition that itself is not derived from science and so is inconsistent with its own terms.

These do not belong in science.

To say that some discipline or activity qualifies as non-scientific is to imply the existence of a standard by which the scientific status of an activity can be assessed. Philosophers of science have so far been unable to to come up with consistent and agreed upon demarcation criteria to distinguish what is science and what is not. Have you made some hitherto unknown breakthrough in this area that we should know about?

Cordially,