From what I have seen, ID is the exact opposite of science.
Science relies on the scientific method, starting with data and working through hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, etc. all the way to theory for the single best explanation that 1) explains all the relevant data, 2) survives rigorous testing, and 3) allows successful predictions to be made. Science is conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals and appropriate symposia.
ID is the opposite; it starts with an idea and seeks anything that can support that idea, while ignoring anything that contradicts that idea. It employs misrepresentation, denial, populism, and ultimately its results must be in accord with religious dogma and scripture. It avoids peer-reviewed journals in favor of popular audiences, and avoids subjecting its data to testing. Much of its efforts are aimed at lay or religious audiences using PR techniques. It lacks scientific rigor.
Further, ID was schemed up to get around the
Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the US Supreme Court which determined that creation science was actually creationism in disguise. The book,
Of Pandas and People is good evidence. After the court's decision the term "creationists" was globally replaced by "design proponents" -- but they made a mistake. They ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in one place. That was a clear giveaway that "creationists" and "design proponents" were considered the same.
Based on all of this, and the famous Wedge Document, I see no scientific merit in ID. It is just one more dishonest attempt to fool school boards and other people who don't know any better.
Edited by Coyote, : spelling
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
™ Version 4.2
(1)
