I love the obvioulsy unintentional juxtaposition:
Then why is ID not accepted by the science establishment. Is there perhaps a conspiracy of some sort or are biologists, chemists, et al. just stupid and deluded?
Bias. They percieve something that could threaten their worldview, so they shutdown. They dismiss it a priori.
If our observations are based on an intelligent designer, how would we ever arrive at a falsifiable conclusion? It seems as though the theory has almost set itself up to be neither falsifiable nor infalsifiable. How do you see us getting around that?
Patience. We must wait, and accept the fact that our methods may need to develop for decades before we are sophisticated enough to design a falsifiable test. In the meantime, we must stay open to all possibilities.
IOW, ID is not accepted as science because of bias, but ID doesn't have a scientific theory now and may not for decades. Totally ignoring the fact that ID is not accepted as science because it ain't science now and may never be.
I see nothing wrong with further research into ID. Researchers will have to compete for funds like everybody else, but the DI seems to be pretty well funded ... what research programs are they running?
When Dembski first started out I was all for what he was doing. I was pretty sure it would never do what he wanted it to, but research often has unexpected consequences. Now that he's descended to full-time apologetics he's just wasting time.
™ Version 4.2