Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
I firmly believe that one day (if the human race does not go extinct) that greater consciousness will be found--and even a true concept of God, and the higher emotion felt and relayed as 'The holy Ghost'--will better be understood
I firmly BELIEVE? You are invoking a priori thought system here and you want to talk about ID qualifying as a science?
You do know the checklist for the Scientific Method don't you?
1. Make observations in the REAL universe (not some fantasy scenario thought up in one's head). 2. Postulate hypothesis that explains the observations. 3. Check the hypothesis by experimentation/corroborating evidence - there MUST be positive predications that can be verified. 4. Define the conditions of FALSIFIABILITY - hint - it is even more important to describe what a hypothesis CANNOT do than what it can. A hypothesis that can glibly say everything is possible is NFG. 5. Subject to corroboration of point 3 and that identified falsifiables do not in fact occur in the scenario under consideration, move tentatively towards the powerful scientific theory, whilst all the time being prepared to modify or completely trash the hypothesis in the light of new evidence.
Above all, the hypothesis/theory must be validated by REAL evidence in the REAL universe.
If the above 5 point scientific method is not strictly followed then the practitioner is NOT doing science no matter what shit they think.
Here is an example of the scientific method at work:
1. OBSERVATION: Life on Earth is very diverse with many organisms adapted for life in numerous ways. Linnaen taxonomy indicates a 'tree of life'. How did this come about?
2. HYPOTHESIS: Life on Earth originated from a common ancestor and diversified as a result of mutation and natural selection and enabled by geographic (amongst other) barriers that separate groups of individuals and allow speciation and variation to proceed.
3. VERIFY BY EXPERIMENT/EVIDENCE CORROBORATION: If life started from a common ancestor and diversified there will be evidence of this in the genetic make up of species which will reflect the ordering. This will also be apparent in the fossil record and species population demography to name but a few fields.
4. HOW IS THIS HYPOTHESIS FALSIFIED?: There should be a strict ordering of fossils according to time (no rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian) and no innovative features should 'jump' lines (i.e. the correctly wired cephalopods eyes suddenly jumping into late developed mammals eyes) to name just two major falsifiable factors for the above hypothesis -even one example in either of the two factors would totally trash the hypothesis.
5. After 150 plus years of observation and experimentation, point no. 3 is in the affirmative and point no. 4 has no evidence of falsifiability (despite the conditions being given that allow it to be so) so ....the hypothesis becomes the ToE in all its strength.
Please list the scientific methodology for ID. I would be particularly interested in your descriptors of the FALSIFIABILITY section. This should read as in the example above - REAL statements that can be checked in the real world. If you cannot do this then ID cannot conform to the Scientific Method and is NOT science.
You are aware of the background to ID, the Wedge Strategy and the dishonesty it all implies aren't you?