[[Possibly a result of applying science of laws where descriptive science should apply.]]
science of laws is empiracle law- strict science- science of descriptions is assumptions based ‘sciecne’ ie: Religious belief. ID practices empiracle forensic science, while Macroevolution is the practice of assumptions and a priori belief that doesn’t jive with hte evidence. All the ‘filler science’ that is proposed is purely descriptive in nature, and speculative, and also must be pointed out, violates known severe, hypothesis defeating, empiracle forensic evidences. Thus we get statements from Macroevolutionists like “Snowflakes show that negaTive netropy occurs, thus Macroevolution is valid dispite the second law”
a priori belief
Kind of high gibberosity rating there.