Joined: Mar. 2005
All I did was point out that a proposal for a new hypothesis has to offer an actual explanation for something. How is that impolite?
Re "I was persuaded that the creation of the universe by a supernatural agent can be regarded as a scientific hypothesis."
The concept "creation of the universe by a supernatural agent" doesn't conflict with biological evolution as presently understood, as far as I can tell.
Re "However, this treatment of ID depends on exactly how "hypothesis" and "scientific method" are defined. "
I have to disagree with that. The way to make I.D. scientific isn't by redefining terms, it's finding some verifiable set of observations that is expected if I.D. is true, but not expected if it's false. Without that, its a conjecture in search of something to explain.