"You pro evo's really get me....your quote of me was taken out of context so as to mean something completely different than what I said...go back to my original post."
It is EXACTLY what you said. Period, end of discussion--your refutation of the statement "intelligent design is not science" was to site ID's proponents' assertions to the contrary.
fizziwig, I misread the statement in your original post in precisely the same way BeHoldAPaleHorse did, and thought he had made an appropriate reply. It was your re-direct to the original post that made me look again--and to see, I think, where the problem is. Here's the original again:
"You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised."
The sense that I and BAPH first read this as was something like:
1. You claim that ID is not science
2. But ID scientists assert that ID is established science--Q.E.D.
3. Moreover, ID is a particular form of science which rejects norms of science when issues of first causes are concerned
All of which I thought, as BeholdAPaleHorse did, was rather foolish and open to challenge
But from your answer to his challenge, I can now see that your intended sense was something like:
1. You claim that ID is not scientific
2. IDers claim that so-called "established science", when confronted by some issues (such as evolution) does not behave as 'science.'
In other words, fizziwig didn't make the nonsense claim that "ID is an established science, because ID proponents assert that is." But he certainly did appear to make that claim, because it is, frankly, a somewhat tangled pair of sentences. Does that make sense?
Sorry if my intervention here is either wrong and/or unwlecome (flame me instead, in that case). It just struck me that you guys have an interesting point of difference in position to consider, but that got lost in a mini-flame session over some confusing syntax