Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.

Part of the problem with 'Not accepting god' as the 'intelligent designer', is that the "I.D" proponents want to cut off any speculation or investigation about the characteristics of the 'intelligent designer'. They don't want to accept that the question "How did the intelligent designer come about" is valid.

Yes, however, I.D. does not propose any mechanism, does not have any explanitory powers (It is a Black Box).. Behe might have called evolution Darwin's black box, but the mechanisms were proposed, and are testable. The same can not be said for I.D.

THe I.D'ist arent' trying to define that intelligent designer. They are more interested in entering the political arena to try to get 'ID' taught in schools, and leave the "Intelligent Designer" undefined.Thus far, the basic arguement of the I.D. proponents have been attacks on evolution, with 'We don't understand how this works, it must be an intelligent designer'. THat basically what Irreduciable COmplexity boiled down to. Every example in Behe's book has been solved, and shown not to be 'irreduceably complex'. He moved onto other examples from things that were being investigated, and was proven incorrect on those too.Dembski has come up with 'laws' that no one else accepts in his attempt to 'prove' id, such as the "Law of conservation of information'. No way to test it, and it basically is meaningless.If the unlikely event that the I.D> propoents actually do come up with a workable testable model, then I will look at it. Until that time, their playing around in politics does not impress me.