No. Science requires the presence of organized matter in order to take place. The one who creates and organizes matter does not thereby create science, but the necessary conditions for science. Man, the intelligent observer, is the one who ultimately does science.
You're trying to change the argument.
No. I've said from the beginning that intelligent design can fit into the definition of theory as defined by evos on these threads. That definition of theory does not require falsifiability or proof of any kind. Do you think I cannot back up the claim that the universe largely consists of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and that organizing matter for the purpose of carrying out consistent functions is not in accord with the meaning of intelligent design?
That is personal belief, which has no basis in a science discussion.
Show me a scientist who can separate personal belief from his practice and I'll show you a flying spaghetti monster.
Semantics. And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Do you think I cannot back up the claim that the universe largely consists of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and that organizing matter for the purpose of carrying out consistent functions is not in accord with the meaning of intelligent design?
We've all been waiting. Nothing yet. We've just been getting a claim of belief and logical fallacies.
Show me a scientist who can separate personal belief from his practice and I'll show you a flying spaghetti monster.
The inability to separate belief from practice has been the downfall of many a scientist. They often so want something to be true, and they (often unkowingly) contaminate their experiments, producing false results. They are ultimately disgraced in the scientific community when others of differing belief are unable to reproduce their results.
Nice system of checks and balances, huh? Afraid to submit ID to that? I'll submit Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because I want to see those heathens humiliated.