[ModernDayCato]

Okay. Why is evolution science and ID NOT a science? Is it because ID has religious, political or philosophical implications, and you guys are going to claim that evolution does not?

Or is 'science' now decided by majority vote? After all, there are NO cases in history where 'scientists' bray about something ceaselessly, confident that it is true and have those theories discarded and replaced.

So, again, why is your side science and my side philosophy?

[Dimensio]

Okay. Why is evolution science and ID NOT a science?

Why do you think that ID is a science? Evolution makes testable predictions about the natural universe, has established falsification criteria and is based upon observed physical evidence, not simply conjecture (though listening to a number of creationists who haven't studied the issue at all outside of creationist phamplets someone might not realise that). What makes ID a science? I've not heard of any positive physical evidence for ID, I've just been told "some systems couldn't have evolved, therefore they were designed" when even if we found systems without an evolutionary explanation (and thus far all examples I've seen given have been rather well-debunked), it still wouldn't amount to evidence for design (evidence falsifying evolution puts the default position to "unknown", not "designed"). What testable predictions does ID make? Is ID falsifiable? I've been told that ID does not make direct supernatural claims, as it's possible for the "designer" to be entirely constrained with the natural universe, and I've accepted that for sake of argument even when others here reject that. Of course, Pat Robertson's recent speil has made me wonder if the claim that ID isn't really about religion isn't exactly honest. But I won't paint all ID pushers with the same brush.

Is it because ID has religious, political or philosophical implications, and you guys are going to claim that evolution does not?

Any statement about the universe, scientific or not, has potential religious and philosophical implications. It's not the fault of science when it happens to contradict a religious belief, so no, ID does not fail simply for having religious or philosophical implications. I'm not aware of any real political implications of ID (I consider politicians using ID as an issue as pandering, not ID directly influencing them), but then I'm not aware of any real political implications of evolution. Well, there is one: if you have a theocracy then the aforementioned possible religious implications could potentially impact that.

I don't consider ID science because it hasn't brought anything to the table. No physical evidence for their claims. No hypothesized mechanism for the "design". No falsification criteria.

Or is 'science' now decided by majority vote?

Nope.