[fizziwig]

"Mere assertion does not "establish" science. Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry, and certainly not a collection of assertions. What science does require, on a prima facie basis, is that objectivity and empiricism prevail."

Okay.

Yes an assertion does need to be backed up with evidence and or logical reasoning. ID does quite well with that. Again, read Johnson's book. Evolustionists typically dismiss ID without giving it much thought....now that isn't scientific thinking either...its just ignorance.

[Rudder]

I do not see any (empirical) "evidence" from the ID community. And "logical reasoning," while seductive, is not the foundation of a science---data are.

[curiosity]

Yes an assertion does need to be backed up with evidence and or logical reasoning. ID does quite well with that. Again, read Johnson's book.

Johnson is not a scientist.

In addition, he fails to propose any empirical test of ID. Nor has anyone else proposed any test for it. The only thing ID people have attempted to do is find evidence against Darwinism. But evidence against Darwinism, even if valid (and the evidence they have presented isn't), is not evidence for ID.

They argue ID as a default position, and that is fundamentally unscientific.