I already quoted you the definition. It means something not reachable through scientific investigation. So all you've done is make the completely circular observation that something which by definition is outside of science is outside of science. Doesn't elucidate much there.
...which means, mr. attentive, that if ID proves to be the case, there's no reason to think it will likely deepsix evolutionary biology, since what we already know and puzzle about from fossils and microbiology isn't going away.
Current evolutionary theory is that natural variation regulated by natural selection is enough to account for the development of the living species of the world. Anything that shows exceptions to this type of species development will show that that's not the case exclusively, and that will leave open the question of just how much of the biodiversity on this planet was designed, and how much was the product of naturalistic evolution.
You'd be dreaming if you don't think it would turn current scientific assumptions upside down. Even the presence of oil deposits in the predicted locations would only prove that species descended from other species, not that this descent was not guided to any degree by any intelligent force.
I already quoted you the definition. It means something not reachable through scientific investigation. So all you've done is make the completely circular observation that something which by definition is outside of science is outside of science. Doesn't elucidate much there.
The wikipedia definition is historically deficient, There was the notion of supernatural before there was science, much less the modern debate about the reach of science. As I already explained to you at some length, "beyond the reach of science", and "supernatural" are not remotely identical.
...which means, mr. attentive, that if ID proves to be the case, there's no reason to think it will likely deepsix evolutionary biology, since what we already know and puzzle about from fossils and microbiology isn't going away.
Current evolutionary theory is that natural variation regulated by natural selection is enough to account for the development of the living species of the world.
And...as I have already pointed out, more times than I should have had to, without a meaningful response,... this is not a vital assumption, and countermanding it is insufficient to kill darwinian evolutionary theory--too many problems concerning too much evidence, particularly in microbiology would still remain. If it is true, ID is interesting, but not terribly impactful.
Anything that shows exceptions to this type of species development will show that that's not the case exclusively, and that will leave open the question of just how much of the biodiversity on this planet was designed,
All scientific conclusions are always open to question. Discovering that some gap, or the origin of life, required a jump start is not that big a change in the current story.
and how much was the product of naturalistic evolution.
It doesn't change the fundamental facts that the fossils are morphologically connected to form a tree that matches up with the geological column and the tree established by the mutational clock. If there was interference in the so-called fossil gaps, it was an interference with something. What is it that the think the fossil gaps are gaps in? Your contention is founded on a substantial mis-estimation of the devastating strength of the available evidence.
You'd be dreaming if you don't think it would turn current scientific assumptions upside down. Even the presence of oil deposits in the predicted locations would only prove that species descended from other species, not that this descent was not guided to any degree by any intelligent force.
But, curiously enough, there won't be any reason not to keep following the track of ancient shorelines as the planet evolved and folded, will there? And what do you think we should call the theory that underlies this form of oil prospecting? How about Darwinian evolutionary theory?