I don’t agree with you. I think there is merit to the idea of ID.
I am glad there are scientists who are willing to say so. I think it is wrong if others try to shut them up.
Even the founder of the Discovery Institute has admitted in public that they jumped the gun, demanding time in school science classes before contributing anything to science.
My problem with ID is that it has had 200 years in which to come up with something other than gap theory, and even gap theory has been wrong every time it has been specific.
I am glad there are scientists who are willing to say so. I think it is wrong if others try to shut them up.
Science has developed a method over the years that works quite well.
For some reason, creationists continue to try to sneak into science with methods which are contrary to the scientific method--creation "science" and ID are the latest of these attempts.
I suppose most of this is in an effort to bolster their particular beliefs with the respectable mantle of science, but what good is that in the long run if you have to destroy the very method and respectability you are trying to assume?
Scientists know what is science, and what is not science. Why can't creationists respect that and do their own thing in their own venues?
ID is a philosophical idea.
I am glad there are scientists who are willing to say so. I think it is wrong if others try to shut them up.
They are free to think and say what they wish. But pushing ID as science clearly indicates they cannot perform their function as scientists. There is nothing scientific about it. No testable hypothesis. The best they can do is look at 'gaps' in science and say 'goddidit' rather than actually doing research. Right now, there is no research being conducted in ID because it is not researchable.