Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy, not a science

I am continuously astounded by the ongoing controversy surrounding the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It's not that I have an issue with Christians wanting to be heard on the matter or that I think they have no right to speak on it. But I do have a problem with anyone trying to peddle bad science just because they disagree with the accepted theories in a field. And the idea that Christians are being shut out of the science classroom by some monolithic science cabal is laughable: (a) scientists welcome new ideas, if they represent good science and (b) science has no problem with those who challenge currently held ideas, for that's the only way a science improves.

As for ID, religion has no place in the science classroom. This is not a debatable issue: science and religion are two different species of human endeavor and while there may be some overlap, it is a thin one. And regardless of the semantic quibbling that some proponents of ID have made, it is most certainly religiously based, which means by Supreme Court edict that it cannot be taught in the science classroom.

Let me explain what ID is not by explaining what science is. Natural science is built upon theory, based on observation and experimentation. Science does not pretend to be an arbiter of truth, but rather an arena of fact and logic. There is a distinction.

No real science pretends to be complete and final. Theory is not "truth". Science relies on a theory only as long as something does not come along that defines a better model. But a model is not deemed better simply because it is preferred by some. To be a better model than what is accepted at the time, a theory has to do a better job explaining phenomena in the field of study. That is, a new theory has to describe the processes and mechanics of what is studied in a way that is predictable and falsifiable and do it better than previous theories have done. "Predictable" most understand.

"Falsifiability" is where ID fails as a science.

See, falsifiability is a notion hearkening back to philosopher Karl Popper, a former pro-Communist advocate. He ended up denouncing Marx's philosophy, as a science, for the tendency of its proponents to tweak the "theory" in ad hoc fashion when the theory failed, rather than insist on a better model. Communism, in Popper's mind was on its way to becoming a tautology as a result of never-ending tweaks, and no real science (in his mind) does that.

Consequently, we conduct experiments, based on well-defined hypotheses, or make careful observations, not merely to support our positions, but to provide a basis for disproving them. As long as the experimental results continue to support the model, by not failing, we continue to accept the current model as the best candidate for explaining the universe... or rather the portion that the theory covers. The theory is not "truth" nor the final word on the matter and no real scientist would ever pretend it is.

This is why evolution is the only fit model we currently have for explaining the development, rise and continuation of living things and why the theory serves as a basis for all biological sciences. Evolution does not say there is no "designer", but because such a designer would by necessity be supernatural, such a designer could not be part of any natural model (i.e., a supernatural 'designer' is not necessary for explaining the processes and mechanics of the rise and change in living things). There is room for an alternate or competing theory, but only if such a theory can withstand the same scrutiny and maintain the same standards of predictability and falsifiability that evolution has endured. ID does not meet the standard.

ID does not provide a framework for valid experiments. ID assumes a final, immutable truth on living things. ID has no room for improvement and no way to challenge assumptions made in the theory. ID has no way to "measure" or physically factor in a "designer" and cannot provide a means for how the designer fits the model. In fact, ID cannot survive without the notion of an unseen, unknown and immeasurable "designer", even though such a designer cannot be part of the physical model.

Therefore, ID is no science, but rather a philosophy. And as such, belongs in the humanities.

****************************************************

Want to know how to get over 3000 worldwide TV channels on your PC? Want to know how to get the best streaming video? Click Here for more information!