> >Experiment: You need to have the phenomenon or materials ready to hand. The results need to be repeatable, so you need enough of what you're studying to do it again.
>
> This is why I take issue with people who claim that evolution is a "more scientific" theory than creationism. Neither is repeatable, and until scientists can duplicate evolution (building amino acids doesn't count) or God makes another life-supporting planet, it's a matter of what an individual finds to be accurate in his own eyes.

Out of curiosity, do you consider astronomy scientific?

I take a slight issue with the wording of Gharlane's definition, but I agree with his general principles. Much of our astronomical knowledge is deductive rather than inductive. You can perform rigorous observations despite being forever separated in time and space from the subject of your observations, and from those observations build good science.

I tried to address Sam's post on ID a little earlier but could not find the words. As one of the people who (rather directly -- I called it a crackpot pseudoscience, IIRC) pooh-poohed intelligent design, let me just try and clear up what I meant a little bit.

Any area of research that claims to be a discipline of science but deals at its very core with a non-falsifiable hypothesis (in ID's case this is the designer) is not really a science. ID is not a science, no matter how much it pretends to be one.

That said, you can attack the theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. I have no interest in having that discussion, but suffice it to say ID is absolutely not about promoting a second scientific theory in place of evolution. It is about promoting a philosophical and theological position, which is outside the boundaries of science.

I have no problem with those who believe in creationism on the basis of their faith. I don't understand it, but that's fine. I do have an issue with those who would disguise faith as science in a very deliberate effort to undermine the teaching of science in public schools, which is precisely what the ID advocates (and here I distinguish between believers and those who claim to be ID researchers) are doing.

Stephen

P.S. I am willing to discuss whether the study of evolution is scientific, but not whether any of its claims are true or false.