Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

Concerning someone's statement that what is not repeatable is not science it was replied: If you believe that applying logic to ascertain if a death has been caused by murderer's design, is a science, do you then also believe that detecting intelligent design in biological systems is a science?If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So its scope is larger than what my question implies. That's OK with me. I don't think that changes the issue for me. I take this sentence to mean (if not a typo) that you don't deny that ID research is science. That sounds debatable. That sounds arguable. But let's say I take your statement at face value. So ID should give up because of this?Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space? Are you going to tell students of science who are interested in ID that they are wasting their time? Or should some continue to explore the possibilities? This is a little allusive to me being a laymen. Rather than saying "Yes Sir. Whatever you say." I'll try to look more into this "feasability" / "repeatability" matter.I'm not sure how "repeatable" the Big Bang event is. Yet it is agreed upon by many as a valid scientific theory. The natural process by which the Big Bang occured is described in detail?Has the natural process which keeps a star burning been completely described in total? Does the shortage of a complete description of star formation make astro physics not a science?I have asked MIT science students to describe exactly the natural process by which one piece of magnetized metal comes together with another piece of magnetized metal. They described proximities and distances and formulas to predict when the attraction will take place.Then I pressed them further as to why these two pieces of metal move towards each other. I was told that on a "low level" they do not yet know why it happens.Does that make research into electro magnetism not a science because the natural process of magnetism is not yet completely described? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks for the Link. Quoted from link provided above: Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions?If SETI researchers have this freedom why do you want to nip ID in the bud before they have opportunity to speculate pro and con?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I would first want to know what was the stated purpose of the authors of the specific article to which you refer?