The problem is the boundaries of what science is able to explain is where ID has been able to prey upon peoples belief in the validity of science. ID is not scientific.
Real ID is scientific, which is why there are some scientists who embrace it as a theory worthy of investigation.
It claims to be, but the conclusion it reaches lies outside the view of the science.
No, the theory doesn't claim to be scientific, no theory does.
Scientists claim a theory is scientific or not.
It uses the language of science to garner support from a populace that is mostly scientifcally illiterate.
If it was illiterate, scientists could not understand it sufficiently to take issue with it.
You're confusing 'theory' and 'fact'. Facts are observations about the natural world. Just as a simple lay example, the DNA similarities between chimps and humans is a fact. Evolution is a theory- theories tie together and attempt to explain facts. Its very easy to refute a theory- come up with a predition that the theory makes, and test it out. If the prediction doesnt hold- you have a bad theory.
Predict exactly when and where we will see a mutation.
As long as we are at it, give the formula for what exactly a mutation is, why it happens, and what causes it.
The fact that evolution has survived 150+ years of ardent criticism and has arisen as the dominant scientific theory on the development of life on Earth is because as a theory, it readily explains all of the facts and has great explanatory power.
History shows other dominant theories that have since been discarded...
It itself is not a fact however.
Indeed...it is a product of the mind of man, not a fact independent of the mind of man...
To supplant the theory of evolution, one must develop a theory that better explains the facts.
No need to supplant the theory of evolution to show the weakness of it.
See, unlike real science, hard science like physics, evolution hinges on this "thingy" called random mutation.
Yet there is no formula for this random mutation, no direct known cause, no way to measure or quantify it, just some mysterious "force" or process of mutation.
Could be God causing the "mutations" for all we know, which would blow the theory of random selection right out of the water.
Basing an entire philosophy on such an unprovable theory such as "random mutation" from an unknown and unknowable process is just plain faith, and becomes a dogma when it is preached by the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists.
Building a foundation of science on the basis of ignorance, ignorance of what the so called "random mutations" is hardly scientific.
So far many have tried, and failed, but as a result, the theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) way beyond Darwin's limited understanding.
The perception of Darwin's theory has changed, but has it evolved?
I would say not at all...
Similarly, the 'theory of gravity' is a theory that has arisen to the fore of scientific knowledge because it best describes observable facts about how masses interact. It itself is not a fact. No one talks about scientific 'laws' anymore- probably because too many turned out to need revision 
Just show me how to predict evolution to the same precision as we can predict gravity, and I will listen...
Science is itself a process of creating new observations (or reproducing old ones), developing theories that explain the facts, and submitting those theories to tests that either confirm, deny or revise the theory.
Theories that explain things are as old as man, but just because a theory appeals to the mind of man doesn't make it a correct theory...
I really dont understand your logic. If you measure the 'religiousness' of a country as the percentage of the population that goes to organized worship, then the US is one of the most theistic nations on earth.
You and I measure religiousness differently. The US gives lip service to religion, but the US is the most materialistic country on earth. Not spiritualistic, but materialistic.
Does that explain the alcoholism, infant mortality rate, failed marriages, etc? I dont think so either, but dont try to pin that on science either.
I talked about contentment, and how science does not produce contentment, nor inner happiness, nor peace of mind. Clearly on the whole Americans have more material luxury than anyone else, but that is not bringing peace of mind, nor contentment...
We suck at somethings because our priorities are out of whack- not because science hasnt improved the standard of living enough. Infant mortality is my favorite pet peeve- theres no reason for the US to be down so far in the roster as it is- science has this one licked, we as a nation just choose not to utilize it because we prefer lower taxes to forking over the cost of healthcare.
You prove my point. Science does not improve the quality of the inner life, because the realm of science is the outer physical existence, not the inner nature of man.
Go back thousands of years ago, and you still see human being struggle with the same 7 deadly sins, nothing that science has done about this at all...
