Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Would you be OK with ID if it were taught as a possible augmentation
to the *philsosophy* of science rather than science proper?


Depends on what you then meant by ID...it would have to quit pretending
to be science-based and admit it is simply discussing something about
what is outside the realm of science--but then, there are many schools
of philosophy dealing w/ those issues already. What would distinguish
it as ID vis a vis some other?

Because it uses existing science as a feedback mechanism to propose
a modification to the current first propositions of science.

That's where we disagree prfoundly--science doesn't have a "first
proposition" in the sense you have one. Science works backwards to
discover that first proposition and discovers whatever it discovers on
the way...