My point is that Bacon believed in limiting the science to essentially experiments that could be done in a lab. He didn't take into consideration that the scientific method does extend beyond the lab and beyond to the immediately observable. Historical sciences are just as valid. They make testable predictions. Astronomy, cosmology, geology and paleontology all fit this description.
Also, my original point to Blessed was that to teach ID as science means you have to harmfully warp the meaning of science. Blessed called that fiction. But science will have to change to incorporate the supernatural for ID to fit. Or Science will have to change so any hand-waving arguement or idea can have the same footing as those developed from observation. That affects all branches of science.
I totally agree, but for the very same reasons regarding the historical character of origins science I disagree that "science will have to change to incorporate the supernatural for ID to fit." It is simply circular to exclude the postulation of nonmechanistic (mental or intelligent) agency in scientific origins theories based soley on an exclusively naturalistic definition of science. All historical theories depend on making inferences based on indirect observations in an attempt to reconstruct past conditions or causes from present facts. Excluding intelligent agency in an objective historical investigation a priori based merely on a naturalistist philosophy makes about as much sense as saying that a homocide detective is not being scientific because he attributes the cause of the dead body to some intelligent agency rather than the result of some accidental mechanism. One hypothesis or the other may turn out to be true, but one cannot say that either hypothesis and/or the investigation is not a scientific one, or using a scientific methodology. In fact, if the detective ruled out any possiblity of agency a priori he would never find the murderer, if indeed the death was the result of murder.
Cordially,