That's not true. ID is based on forensic science and information science. I know that this debate wasn't about what is or isn't science but I think that, in the larger picture, it definitely is. Evolution is dogma and it isn't to be challenged. Let anyone who does so be considered anathema (blasphemous even!).
[Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).
That's truly an ignorant position to take. Do you think you are repeating anything that I haven't heard? Why don't you actually read the essay? That's the thing about you dogmatists-- you don't even bother to read any articles which might cause you to challenge your worldview. That's so cowardly in my opinion.
If you read the essay, all of your points are considered (and refuted). I'm not going to do the work for you, but if you have the courage, you can do it for yourself, pussy!
(warning: Stephen Meyer is several notches up the scale of intellectual acuity than Ham)
In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude both intelligent design and 'descent from common ancestor'. [And, in the case of inclusion will also bring in a lot of other non-sensical theories].
[Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).