New Science Standards in Florida

Where science differs is rather than simply interpreting evidence, with all the errors and potential philosopical bias that this allows, conclusions are tested against nature by means of prediction and verification. Thus objectivity and reliability of conclusions are maximised.ID does not incorporate this essential step. It is merely untestable interpretation of physical evidence drawn from a very obviously biased predetermined religious position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ID is not science. At best it is an untestable hypothesis. At worst it is a blatant attempt to legitimise a religious position by unjustifiably disguising itself so as to benefit from the authority and respect that science has earned over time.Is it that you disagree with prediction and verification as a means of improving objectivity and reliability or that you do agree with this as a technique BUT think both ID and Evo equally fail in this respect and are therefore equally unscientific?My response to the latter position would be that evolution has been verified by means of prediction but that proponents of ID do not even claim that this as a posibility with regad to their position.On what basis can you really dispute this?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. No. Empirical evidence is the key. Evolution is not a product of atheism (indeed many religious people have no problem at all with evolution). Evolutionary theory is a product of emperical evidence. A theory borne of atheistic bias that was not supported by or even actually contradicted empirical evidence would not be valid.
The assertion that God absolutely definitely does not exist would be such an assertion. No atheist I am aware of (incl Dawkins) makes this claim. A theory that assumes the existence of an entity for which there is no empirical evidence but which is somehow known to exist and which then interprets all evidence with regard to this entity is incapable of objectivity and is thus invalid.To be objective you must be skeptical. Things for which there is empirical evidence need to be empirically tested in order to be verified. Things for which there is no empirical evidence must be assumed not to exist.
Nature does not give a shit how we want it to be. It is as it is. By testing our theories against nature by means of prediction and verification we eliminate as much as possible our unavoidable biases. That is why the scientific method works.
Dawkins is as strong a proponent of the scientific method as anyone. You show me a IDist or creationist theory with a genuinely refutable prediction regarding new empirical evidence andI will show you a pig with big feathery wings. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.