Reply #48: You know, I am going to have to disagree with you pretty broadly here.

[Random_Australian]

"point it'll require discarding Materialism"

It never embraced it, never was more than a way of asking questions about the world.

"Science has been corrupted by Industry."

Nope, industry bought some opinions of people, and people have ignored science when making decisions, but that is not part of science. Science has not been corrupted by anything, these days the sciences are learning more all the time, at a rate most if us are incapable of comprehending.

"Intelligent Design, in so far as it posits an inherent Natural Intelligence, is a valid theory regarding the mechanism behind Evolution"

Actually, it isn't even a hypothesis, much less a theory. So describing it as a "valid theory" is not something you can do.

"blindly adhering"

We make our own decisions, not blind adherence.

" one particular UNPROVEN philosphical world view"

You cannot absolutely prove by induction anyway, so that does not affect it. Also, evolution is supported by the evidence. The others aren't.

ID is not valid.

Here is why:

The following exclude the hypothetico-deductive method and focus on the logico-deductive.

Definition of hypothesis:

- In order to propose a hypothesis, we must have some repeatable, verifiably observable phenomenon that is either inexplicable by current science (as in , contradicts another theory, not simply difficulty in understanding the mechanisms OR it can present significant reductions in the complexity of the current accepted theories. (eg plate tectonics, when they first went from geocentric to heliocentric)

- This must predict some testable effect in the world, or it must be able to be used as a predictor of some kind. (similarity in close species in evolution)

ID meets neither, it does not explain the inexplicable, it does not simplify the current, it does not predict anything testable.

There you go!