[Gumlegs]

A theory must explain the data. Data must be intelligible. Intelligibility cannot exist apart from design. Design cannot exist apart from order. Order can exist on the basis of only two possibilities I can conceive of: intelligent causation or unintelligent causation. Perhaps you'd care to suggest a third. Either way, science must proceed under one or the other assumptions, yet it has no way I know of to test the empirical veracity of either one.

Thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of the one sentence of mine you were able to quote, "You have again ignored all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science."

Which assumption do you reckon the Royal Society operates under? Which one do you prefer to see outlawed in public schools, O "champion of academic freedom?"

What difference does it make, Fester? You'd only ignore the answer.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well, O "champion of academic freedom," please enumerate all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science. We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.

Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.