[darbymcgill]

You want ID to be considered scientific before it makes any scientific, testable claims.

[I do]??? where did I post anything even close to that?

Just because there is no evidence for ID now doesn't mean there ever (never?) will be

We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none.

You want science to change its rules and allow ID in before it makes any testable claims.

I do???? (to avoid spam goto [I do])

[curiosity]

I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none.

Great. So when you've found some evidence from ID, let me know. In the mean time, it has no place in the classroom.

[js1138]

We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none.

The shameful thing about ID is, in its two hundred year history, it has never looked, nor has it ever suggested what it might be looking for.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" [I do]???"

If you don't want ID to be considered science, what is your point then?

"We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none."

And just because we have not found evidence for Santa Claus, doesn't mean there isn't any. Teach the controversy!