[Ichneumon]

[In all likelihood, biologists would realize rather quickly that the sequence was out of place, simply by comparing it to other pig genomes.]

Testable, falsifiable. So ID is, in this case, scientific.

You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

This is *why* the ID folks are so reluctant to stake out any actual position, construct any actual theory. Until they do, ID isn't science, it's a mere belief.

In order to be taken seriously, and deserve a spot in classrooms, etc., the ID folks will have to BOTH come up with an actual scientific "theory of ID" (i.e., a system of explanations which both make testable predictions and which can potentially be falsified), *AND* have that theory be actually validated by having been tested against the evidence and found to be consistent with the evidence AS A WHOLE.

Until then, they can hold their breath until they turn blue, but that still won't make their unsupported (and for the most part religiously-based) beliefs into *science*. The IDers want to pretend that their notions are science, in order to dishonestly gain the respect that scientifically validated theories rightly have earned.

[r9etb]

You're missing the point. You're missing the point. For the most part, the "ID movement" very carefully *avoids* making any testable hypotheses. And the few times it has, they have *already* been falsified.

1. I have the advantage of dealing with specifics, whereas you persist in generalities.

2. If you're correct that certain ID hypotheses have been falsified, then the standard "it's not science because it can't be falsified" argument is self-evidently wrong.

[PatrickHenry]

Hee hee.

[b_sharp]

Here I thought I presented a good post, but you have to top it by posting quite appropriate and funny cartoons...:^P

[jec41]

Someone understands why ID is not science but philosophy.