On UD, gil dodgen says:
"The absence of standards of accountability and empirical verification is the hallmark of a pseudoscience."
The words in his statement are right, but he applies it to "Darwinism", which is wrong on two counts. First, "Darwinism" is not a scientific endeavor or theory. Evolutionary theory is. It can also be called the theory of evolution, or the modern synthesis, or the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Second, ID is the pseudoscience. It has no accountability or empirical verification. IDiots can't even define their often used terms, let alone verify anything.
gildo-the-arrogant-moron also said:
"This is why I claim that Darwinism is junk science of the highest order. In no other legitimate scientific discipline would such low standards of evidence be acceptable."
Well then, that sure does leave ID out of legitimate scientific disciplines, since ID has NO evidence at all.
Hey gildo, hating Darwin isn't "evidence" that supports your junk science of the highest order (ID). "Darwinism" isn't a "science", and you trying to make it sound like one just so that you have something (or someone) to aim your sanctimonious religious hatred at is certainly "junk".