Quote:
|
to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
|
Except that, as Samildanach mentioned, that last sentence does not indicate who gets to define "more adequate". And more adequate in what respect? It does seem to introduce more variables, and leave more logic-holes to be exploited than the simple definition offered in #1.
The bottom lines is that science has been doing just fine for some time now. It doesn't require redefinition, and especially not by a group with an obvious agenda of trying to get their philosophy accepted as a science. ID is nothing more than creationism hiding behind a different interface. I have no issue with it being considered right along with other philosophies, but it is not, no matter how you twist the definition, a science.