ID "is not science" trotted out again

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin recently gave a lecture at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in which he argued very well that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific realm of investigation regardless of what the loudmouth darwinist congregation might say. Speaking against Dr Luskin was a theologian, and isn't it strange that the darwinists sent a theologian to argue against Dr Luskin instead of a biologist. Truth be told, darwinism is pure theology and they know it.

Peter Hess, a theologian, author of "Catholicism and Science" and a defender of teaching evolution in schools. He said Intelligent Design is "not science'' but is "poor theology.''

Again with the tired old trope that Intelligent Design is "not science''. This might be hard for some people to understand but detecting design and making legitimate design inferrences from the world around us is too science.
Consider an episode of Diagnosis Murder. When Dr Mark Sloan finds a patient at Community General has been murdered he doesn't just leap to the conclusion that unguided materials and energies just happened by chance to create the appearance of murder. He meticulously examines the scene and performs experiments in the form of interviews to arrive at a logical deduction of how an intelligent agent performed the complex specified act. And he gets it done in under an hour despite being interrupted for commercial breaks. Intelligent Design researchers are just doing the same thing.

Stop already with trotting out the "ID is not science" pony.