spendius wrote:dys-
I'm sorry to have to say it but that stuff has been gone over ad nauseum.It is another simple variation on the "Yes it is"/"No it isn't" style of debate.
Spendi, you seem to think that the question of whether ID is science or not is debatable. It's not.
ID is not science by definition. There is no debate. It fails the basic premise of science by exceeding the bounds of naturalism (it fails in other ways as well). If you want to debate the value of naturalism to the science, that's fine, but you can't debate the definition of science itself.
The only people who are attempting to debate ID as science refuse to acknowledge the definition of science itself. They are attempting (as noted in court transcripts) to remove naturalism from the definition. If they do that, *then* ID will be scientific, and *then* we can debate it's relative merit among other scientific theories.
Of course, if they remove natualism from the structure of science, then I have a Scientific All Powerful Magic Elf theory which is going to be VERY hard to disprove.