Actually it's not. The OP is asking about if evolution is science, pseudo-science, etc...
Those definitions are based entirely on philosophical arguments regarding metaphysics and epistemology. As I pointed out in my direct response to the poster, even if today (according to modern scientific methods) we would consider alchemy a "pseudo-science" at the time it really was valid science. Both the rules and the dataset were much different and so the pursuit and how it was conducted was valid science.
If you have read any of Dembski's books he openly discusses loosening the rules of modern scientific methods, such that we return to a much more free science which does not rule out certain metaphysical realities from investigation. He is arguing that the current trade off of strict rules to determine knowledge and "certainty" are too tight because it can lead to something dire which is missing the real truth.
He has a valid point. That is possible and for someone with a moral viewpoint that the ultimate "truth" must be the focus of science, then our current methods can definitely be viewed as too strict.
You can see hints of this within many of their articles and testimony when they say that science is about seeking "truth", and that is why evo cannot be viewed as more certain than ID. With the lessening of criteria (which they argue for) that is pretty much accurate.
That is why I have repeatedly (and so far this has not been objected to) pointed out that what much of this debate centers on is rules of knowledge. It is not simply whether evo has more evidence than creo, but what counts as evidence in the first place.
That is absolutely relatable to what was just being argued in the other thread. You don't have to discuss the subject of the other thread to deal with the same epistemological issue here.
If he feels that he can redefine the rules by which we gauge certainty within science, such that evo and creo are equal with regards evidence, or that darwin is some form of psedu-science, based on a priori moral beliefs which direct epistemological needs, you have got to have a concrete answer.
Your current, consistent one will have to be to retract your statement about certainty regarding the ToE.
You may not like the implications, but this is factual and consistent with the topic of this thread. That I relate it to what you said in another thread, to draw out what your real position is, has been a practice at EvC for quite a long time and I don't remember it getting bashed before.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)