"The question compulsively put before the house is whether or not ID is any kind of even marginally reputable science..."
Reputable scientists take facts as known and then posit ID theories based on them. Why is this intellectually invalid? Not testable or falsifiable, like Darwinism?
Reputable scientists take facts as known and then posit ID theories based on them. Why is this intellectually invalid?
And the specifics of the theory And the doable tests proposed to verify these specifics are what? Don't bother to clarify, just point me to the writeups of the results.
Not testable or falsifiable, like Darwinism?
There is no branch of science that has even remotely suffered and survived more potentially falsifiable tests than Darwinism. It happens most every time a prof sends out his students to a dig whose location is based on analysis of existing data.