They are the ones who declare ID to be "unscientific" merely because it implies a Creator.
No, they call it unscientific because it doesn't conform to the basic standards of science. Funny how we insist on standards, huh?
They are the ones who would exclude inferences, implications, possibilities, hunches, and the like as being "unscientific."
Kindly cite one example of this canard.
Scientists don't discount hunches. On the contrary, they rely on hunches. What they don't accept is the notion that hunches are a substitute for scientific evidence. But then we're back to those pesky standards.
This is just more of the affirmative action whining. You can't create a coherent theory to support ID, so you want to lower scientific standards to your level.
The basic standards of science should not rule out something merely because it implies a force that cannot presently be directly observed. Just because that force may be personal or intelligent does not make the object any less scientific. What a bass-ackwards way to do science: rule out a possibity and proceed from there.
Yes, science has standards. Apparently you would prefer it have substandards.
Kind of what the whole experiment was about. Science had a 'hunch', but no definitive evidence.. No?
From the article - “But that has left open the question of whether the RNAP enzyme actually climbs up the DNA ladder one rung at a time, or does it move instead in chunks – for example, does it add three bases, then jump along and add another three bases.