ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument. ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

The responsibility is on the ID community to develop a scientific basis for
their theory. The reason most of their publications, to date, are in
newspapers, books and monographs, or in their own DI publications, is that
their claims boil down to "some things are too complex to explain" which
certainly can't be proven. If they want to concentrate on "some things
haven't been proven yet" and then conduct scientific experiments to prove
that they can't be proven, have at it. Science can and will be published
with peer review.

Steve