ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

bertvan: If the latter is the case I would say that the creator is quite benevolent.I am really not following your point. Science is not a religion, or a philosophy, it does not give one answers to finding ones own Nirvana. (Although listening to Carl Sagan spell out science in the Cosmos can be very spiritual:cool Science is at it's very nature materialistic in it's study. The scientific method is based on gathering information based on empirical, measurable evidence, and (key word) observable natural phenomena.bertvan: Science says there is no proof of a Supernatural all powerful force welding his/her/it's power throughout the universe. Science never "precludes" anything it only works on predictions, inferences and conclusions of observable data. It can make a prediction that there is no all powerful being inflicting it's/his/her/ will on us because there is no proof; no evidence. Besides how do you use science to test this?

I think this is a great point to the original argument, on whether ID can be science. This target "God did it" is completely arbitrary in my opinion and keeps moving. What's wrong with saying "I don't know, lets ask more questions." Science never claims to have all the answers, nor should it, if it did then curiosity stops and the questions cease, and then what are we left with.So to use this type of thinking in a scientific format influences your conclusions and clouds your predictions with a preconceived result. So ID could never, in my opinion, be science simply based on it's premise of a designer.