And SETI isn't a scientific theory. I consider it an engineering effort, or perhaps one of discovery, or (cynically) an exercise in PR by NASA, but it isn't a scientific theory.
Those aren't theories you're quoting.
No, they're statements of theories. You said that "scientific theories generally don't deal in absolutes like that." I was showing that in fact science does very often make absolute statements like the ones I mentioned. But they are not outliers. In fact I'd say science usually is making absolute claims. Newton claimed that *every* pair of masses *anywhere* in the universe attracted according to his law. Evolution makes the claim that *all* present earth life descended from prior life and so on back to some universal common ancestor.
Circular reasoning.
I made the claim that ID isn't a scientific theory then concluded that because it isn't, it need not be constrained by the forms of a scientitific theory. How is that circular?
Correct, and I made that same point as well earlier in the thread. The question isn't whether SETI is a scientific theory, but whether it would be a valid scientific exercise to attempt to determine whether a signal we might discover through SETI is or is not of intelligent origin.
No, they're statements of theories.
No, they're not theories or representations of theories. Ask any scientist.
Evolution makes the claim that *all* present earth life descended from prior life and so on back to some universal common ancestor.
And ID makes the "claim" that there definitely was intelligent intervention in the process of speciation. But the fact remains, neither theory is considered absolutely proven, and theories, despite their absolute "claims", get revised all the time. So it's really only a question of probability whether or not a given theory accurately describes reality.
I made the claim that ID isn't a scientific theory then concluded that because it isn't, it need not be constrained by the forms of a scientitific theory. How is that circular?
Because you're using as your assumption the very assertion that's in dispute here on this thread.