|[qs=Taq]Of course, this really isn't getting us any closer to the question posed in the opening post. I, for one, would like to see any cdesign proponentist explain why their model would ever predict a nested hierarchy for genetics and morphology. This is my biggest sticking point with ID.[/qs]|
I'm sorry Taq, but I'll have to admit that the final sentence in the above quote almost made soda come out of my nose.
ID makes one and only one testable prediction; namely that the theory of evolution cannot explain at least one observed biological feature. Regarding everything else, there is just ad hoc hand-waving and/or Bible study about what a Designer might or might not have a motivation to do.
Of course the lack of any real testable predictions should be of no surprise to anyone. The entire purpose for ID is to moderate the effects of teaching of the theory of evolution in k-12 classrooms given that outright bans on teaching the ToE has been found to be unconstitutional. ID is required to actually predict jack doodly-squat nothing. The heavy lifting of actually attacking the evidence for the theory of evolution is left to other branches of creation science.
Just having methods, logic, mathematics, and organization does not make an inquiry scientific. Astrology and other forms of numerology have all of those things. Sorry DB.
Yes, your observation was completely correct, but I think the problem with ID is far more fundamental than your statement hints.