Does ID follow the scientific method?

DB writes:These basics are of course:Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions

DB writes:His evaluations had to involve presuppositions (SMs)and then conclusions, correct?

Dawn Bertot writes:It has been alleged in the following posts that I have no stated my position, this is wrong.

Dawn Bertot writes:I will state it again and see if perhaps you will attempt to answer it

Dawn Bertot writes:What besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not?Secondly if we use the same methods why is ours considered NOT science

Dawn Bertot writes:Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach

Bluejay writes:I don't understand why you think this is a sufficient answer. It's a generic, baseless assertion. In order to meet the criteria of the question, it needs to be specific, and supported with evidence.Please model your responses after the example I gave in Message 141: doing so will amply demonstrate your point, if indeed your point is true.

DB writes:We observe identifiable and testable order in any physical example