ID is a _conclusion_ not a method (Score 0)

The comment "ID is not science" is such a dishonest statement. Of course ID is not a scientific method. It's a conclusion _from_ a scientific method, just like evolution is. You can't say Darwin used evolution to discover evolution. No, he came to the conclusion of evolution by using the scentific method of which the supreme factor is _observation_, and I have no problem with that. One scientist looks at finch beaks and concludes macro-evolution. Another sees the same beaks and concludes micro-evolution. It is all so obviously about presuppositional biases isn't it?