The phrase as a science wasn’t in the O/P.
I think when it is asked "how ID's supernatural-based science is supposed to work", it is implicit that the question is how it should work
as science, and not as a gardening implement, a dietary supplement, or a device for mechanically peeling bananas.
Their own caricature is often asking questions, or thinking about things that atheists prefer not to think about. Life is complex, the cell has information, and biological systems are orderly. And, life is fragile.
Instead of lying about what atheists think about, you could always ask some of them.
The TOP natural scientists (leaders, political activists) are atheists, "almost total".
It is interesting that the people who know most about the natural world are the least inclined to attribute it to God; but surely it is not on-topic here for you to supply arguments in favor of atheism.
If most evolutionists are religious people, they fall in line behind the atheist leaders, there is plenty of evidence that their religion becomes secondary to them.
Which for some reason you have neglected to supply.
A constraint is not a guide. Constraining something doesn’t guide it.
Your fiddling about with words may have obscured the point in your eyes, but is hardly likely to make anyone else less able to grasp the point.
And they won’t successfully shout down ID.
You inadvertently told the truth!
To decide borderline cases of design will require the experimental or theoretical exploration of models [...] Future research could take several directions.
Come back when IDers are writing about their research in the past and not the future tense.
What does bad mean?
It is hard to know with you whether you are dishonestly feigning incomprehension or whether you are genuinely confused.
The immediate, incredible amount of hostility and rage towards Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" is a very strong indicator of who controls science.
Yeah.
Scientists. Who know pseudoscientific crap when they see it.
ID, as a challenge to some aspects of evolution, or as a scientific inquiry of its own, doesn’t focus on any characteristic of the supernatural, it only attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be E.T. or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent.
No, not really. If scientists determine that the answer is
no, then surely that is not ID. You might as well define flat-Earthism as an attempt to determine whether the Earth is flat.
As enough has been said about IDer's shameful equivocations on the subject of religion, I need not add to it here. Especially since you have already spent enough time not answering the actual question.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.