Summations Only

Precisely. They try to disparage science as being myopic or wrong, but then try to claim that ID/creationism is science in order to make it appear more legitimate. Never do you see them claiming that ID/creationism is more legitimate because it is a religious belief instead of a scientific theory. In fact, they try to delegitimize the theory of evolution by claiming it is a religious belief, of all things. I think that is perhaps the most telling strategy of them all.

That is completely false. The scientific method didn't exist before, and now it does. We were able to construct the scientific method without those principles or terms already existing. Then why try to claim that ID/creationism is science if it is so limiting?

That is not what I am implying. The scientific method is used to derive theories and models, not observations. You are claiming that ID/creationism is a scientific theory. In order to be a scientific theory, ID/creationism needs to meet the criteria for being a scientific theory as defined by the rules that we have made for what is and isn't a scientific theory. Remember what you wrote in the opening post?"It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation"You already stated that you will be using scientific evidence. That means your evidence needs to be empirical.You already stated that you will be adhering to the rules of what constitutes a scientific investigation. That investigation requires the construction of testable and falsifiable hypotheses.If you can't meet these requirements, then now is the time to admit it.

Whether you can construct testable and falsifiable hypotheses for ID/creationims is a truth or it is not. Which is it? I was using your non-scientific method to show that rainbows are created by invisible unicorns. Thanks for confirming that your non-scientific method is nonsensical.

No, it isn't the same evidence. The theory of evolution predicts that phylogenies based on morphology should match phylogenies based on DNA sequences. That is what evidences evolution.How does this evidence ID/creationism?

Then please show us how the matching morphological and DNA phylogenies evidences design. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens That is a claim, not evidence.

You do realize that you just described almost every single post that you have written, right?You read that intricate design evidences a deity on creationist website and you parrot it here, and you expect to convince others.You use a fallacious method of evidencing a claim, and you expect to convince people using this method that goes against all common sense and reason.Really, this is your method in action:Invisible unicorns make rainbows.
Since rainbows exist, this is indirect evidence for invisible unicorns.You are doing the same for intricate design and designers. Never do you stop to think that intricate designs don't require a designer just as rainbows do not require invisible unicorns.

There is this thing called the burden of proof which is placed on the person making the claim. You are claiming that intricate designs are evidence of a designer. It is up to you to evidence this claim. It isn't up to us to disprove it. Whether something has order is irrelevant to the claim of design. We can scoop up a bucket full of dirt and dump it into an aquarium full of water and it will produce order, no designer necessary.

I use testable and falsifiable hypotheses to determine the validity of claims for unobserved events. Please show me that there is not rainbows.

I already gave you an example of order forming in the absence of a designer. If order can occur without a designer, then it is irrelevant for determining design. Except that you don't use that evidence. The evidence is matching phylogenies for morphology and DNA sequences. How does that evidence design? The direct evidence is matching phylogenies for morphology and DNA sequences.

How do you determine if a rainbow is created solely by natural causes and not by invisible unicorns?

Nope. That is your burden of proof. You are the one who is claiming that life is designed, so it is up to you to supply evidence that life was designed. That's how the burden of proof works. That's how common sense and reason work.

Now you bring up "specific revelation"? Are you done using evidence?The question is simple. How do you know that a rainbow is created by solely natural causes and not invisible unicorns?The point is this. When all of the evidence is consistent with natural causes, you don't try to claim that there is an undetectable and unevidenced supernatural cause that is really causing the observations. That is what common sense and reason tells us.The phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences are all consistent with the natural mechanisms of evolution. All of it. Therefore, it goes against all common sense and reason to propose that there is a supernatural deity that designed life in such a way that it exactly mimics what those natural mechanisms would produce.We don't have to disprove a supernatural cause when all of the evidence is consistent with natural causes. This silly qualifier of proving that it is solely natural causes goes against all reason.

All common sense and reason states that you do have to give evidence. You need to provide evidence that what you call intricate order was produced by a supernatural deity.

If we put two mugs together for a little while, we don't get a bunch of baby mugs. That's what differentiates the two. Biological reproduction is what allows life to produce intricate design through the mechanisms of evolution, and it is something that coffee mugs lack. That is why comparing the two is completely illogical.