Direct observation is simply a way of adding veracity to scientific method and expression. What in the world makes you think ID is less scientific than any other theory if direct observation is left out of the equation? I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation. Evolutonism does not enjoy as much.
You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.
The lack of a theory, untestable hypotheses, inability to falsify, inability to objectively quantify specified complexity, the number of false positives when using Dembski's probability calculations (design inference). How many more reasons do you need?
"I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation."
There are no direct observations in astrology other than the position of a few constellations and planets in the sky. Direct observation of the predictions based on those positions is nonexistent.
"Evolutonism does not enjoy as much. "
Some of the mechanisms of evolution have been directly observed as has the variation of allele frequencies. Just as in some other fields of study, such as quantum mechanics, the observations have been indirect rather than direct. We observe the results of evolution in both extant and extinct organisms. It is verified by DNA studies.
"You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.
Not directly observed. Indirect observation is as valuable as direct observation.
Creation Science is not science not because of the directly unobservable but because of the lack of: theory, testability, and falsifiability. The results of Creation Science are not given credence because they require the twisting of the basic laws of physics to fit Biblical stories a priori.