[js1138]

That does not change the fact that science deals with things that are observable.

No one can say that ID or he ism of the day is not true. What we can decide is whether a statement is scientific or not. We can say whether a methodology is valid or not. We can say whether there is evidence supporting a statement or not.

The problem with ID is not that it isn't true, but that it isn't science. It hasn't made any statements that qualify as a hypothesis. To the extent it has -- by suggesting that blood clotting or flagella are irreducible -- it has been demonstrated to be false. The more we learn about complex mechanisms, the more reducible they become. This has been a consistent trend in science since its earliest days.

[xzins]

And my point is that sometimes, because things are unknown, we don't even know the questions to ask...much less, the methods to use.