The scientific evidence (not proof) for ID would be that some empirically measured event is inconsistent with the conjecture that ID is not true, given prior accepted theory. Logical proof (not evidence) would be a contradiction in the statement that ID is not true, given a set of stated propositions. Right?

Why are we using the term Intelligent Design?

The term ID was introduced when the notion of Creationism had been ridiculed into the ground. They refer to the exact same hypothesis.

Believe whatever you want - that's your prerogative.

However, the fact remains that the arguments in favor of Creationism have been thoroughly shredded. Irreducible complexity has been shown to be demonstrably false.

Because it is a term that does not completely represent Creationism. Sorry but it is different. It does not claim any religion. Some claim it can, but thats not WHAT ID is.

Same thing, different method. Whats wrong with that?

ID is not creationism. Demonstration is just that, a demonstration. Hardly an argument for fact or ultimate proof.

You earlier gave the impression that ID should not be discussed in a science classroom. You now say worldviews are fair game. It sounds contradictory to me, so I want some clarification.

At this point all I have tried to indicate is that the question of intelligence is valid, and that methods exist for studying intelligence.

This is an empiricist's answer.

Such arguments are inherently circular and don't establish anything.

Once you move beyond taxonomy, biology is no longer direct experience, but the effect created by tools

biology is no longer direct experience, but the effect created by tools (such as a microscope).

Science is an empiricist's discipline. Intelligent design does not submit itself to empirical study.

Identifying creationism with ID eliminates mistakes such as: 'ID is not tied to any particular religious notion'. This is important.

The attempt to separate the two terms is a smoke and mirrors trick on behalf of ID/creationism proponents.

I'm a big fan of what Confucius called 'the rectification of names'. That is, we should call something what it is; our terminology should be accurate. The attempt to relabel creationism as ID is an intentional attempt to mislead the public about the nature of the subject. Now, this is not an intentional attempt on the part of, for example you Joe, or Alan, but rather an intentional attempt on the part of those 'thinkers' who write books and articles on the subject. Behe and his peers are pulling the wool over your eyes - don't let them trick you like that.

The fact that ID and creationism are the very same notion does not, in itself, refute the notion. You are right to question the legitimacy of such an argument. But that's not the point I was trying to make: sorry for any confusion.

I argue that creationism is wrong because the hypothesis, in which ever incarnation you please, makes false assertions; the great example being irreducible complexity.

Even if we eliminate these assertions, and simplify the hypothesis to "the universe is the product of an intelligent creator", though we cannot rightly say the hypothesis is false, we can say that the hypothesis lacks explanatory power and is the weaker hypothesis when compared to the immensely useful theory of evolution.

I say this as a theist: as do many scientists. Evolution is absolutely no threat to faith, only a threat to fundamentalist faith.

Even if we eliminate these assertions, and simplify the hypothesis to "the universe is the product of an intelligent creator", though we cannot rightly say the hypothesis is false, we can say that the hypothesis lacks explanatory power and is the weaker hypothesis when compared to the immensely useful theory of evolution.

There is no way to test irreducible complexity?

I'd rather see science increasingly approach the truth than give up and say "who knows". If you want "who knows?" as an answer, you might as well argue that science should be abandoned, at least with respect to the origin of life.

Worldviews are only fair game insofar as they can 1) illuminate the long history of science, 2) be supplanted and modified by empirical science as it arises, and 3) allow people to discuss current events as pertains to science and its relationship with the human experience.

Studying the intelligence of lab rats or of third graders is different than studying the intelligence of a proposed creator of the universe.

Science is an empiricist's discipline.

So is taxonomy...

Our eyes are tools. Our ears are tools. Our logic is a tool. Our alertness is a tool. These are FAR more fallable than the instruments we design.

Not always. If it is brought up in a theological or even philosophical conjecture, then groovy. Even as an atheist I often play God's advocate here on these forums. It's fine. What gets me 'hot under the collar' is the 'let's pretend' approach to science that people with a vested interest in undermining it play. After nigh on a thousand years of battling scientific progress, the best the fanatical could do was give science a bad name by associating ID with it. I've never met a scientist who didn't react the same way. It simply takes the pi55.
And another thing... if it were a science, it would be fringe science at best, like the Many Worlds Interpretation or Relational QM. This stuff gets studied by science students at earliest at postgrad level, so people have a good enough grounding not to be misguided by it. ID was forced on schoolkids. The purpose of ID is to indoctrinate children in order to make them less susceptible to the tests of faith real science may present them with by pretending there's a bit of science on their side. They're screwing with kids minds in order to perpetuate a religion. It's pretty despicable, so yeah... people get annoyed. Wouldn't you be annoyed if you had a child who learned that, for instance, the holocaust probably didn't happen, or that rattling bones in a cup is as good as penicilin?

The trouble with MOST people in the intelligent design community is that they want to interpose intelligent design as an idea into the science discussion in our country, including into science classrooms. And that's, quite simply, inappropriate. It's not science -- it's theology that coopts words used in science for rhetorical purposes; but a veneer of scientific legitimacy can't make something science if it doesn't use a scientific method.

Irreducible complexity has been shown to be demonstrably false.

I would like to say something kind of general. You state that ID can't be considered a science. You can't state that absolutely for to do that you would have to prove that it is false. For if it were true then it could defintetley be science.

Science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

If ID was true then science of it would be a study of the laws and operations put into place by the intelligent designer.

You can not simply discount ID as being science unless you can fully prove that it is false. For if it is true then it would be science.

So first prove that it is false and then you can talk about how it can't be a science.

This led me to believe you only skimmed my post. You've made assumption after assumption in that paragraph. First, I said I wasn't defending ID. Second, you didn't address any of my points but leapt to telling me how my faith causes me to ignore all sorts of obvious road signs. According to you I have no good reasons, I'm just ignoring what I want to ignore.

You can think that if you want, but it's (what was your word) codswallop until you address what I said, not your preconceived notions of what I think.

Second, these quotes lead me to believe you haven't read much on the philosophy of science - that your expertise is confined to physics. Again, if I am wrong, inform me.

Yes, "method" was taught to me, but never formally. No professor ever gave it the attention and rigor that went into, say, developing the Rayleigh-Ritz method or Lagrange's equations.

No offense, but your outline of the scientific method amounts to what I would expect from an elementary school science textbook. I would think you have a better understanding of what "formal" means to a scientist. If it's so easy, you should be able to quote me the document from ISO, SI, somebody, that defines the scientific method.