There are some problems with this, however. I'll explain what they are,
according to the authors, and then ask questions based upon that:
1. ID is used elsewhere in science
"One problem is that [this view] ignores areas of scientific investigation
where intelligent design is a necessary explanatory concept. The search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is one example....Archaeology would meet
the same fate. Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects
(e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the
differences between them are very subtle...But if we arbitrarily assert that
science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are
prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological
enterprise comes to a grinding halt."
Question: So why should ID be ruled out of court when it is used elsewhere in
science?
2. Confusing laws and explanations
"A second problem with limiting science to blind, natural regularities is that
it confuses laws and explanations....[Example] If a historical geologist
wanted to explain the unusual height of the Himalayas, invoking natural laws
would be of little use. Natural laws alone cannot tell us why the Himalayas
are higher than, say, the Rocky Mountains. That would require discovering
antecedent factors that were present in building the Himalayas, but not in
other mountain building episodes....[I]gnoring the role of causal events in
scientific explanation has created a false dichotomy between agency--or
intelligent design--and the laws of nature. The fact that scientific
explanations may invoke laws doesn't mean that agency is somehow ruled out.
There is a distinction, they write, between "inductive" science and
"historical" science. The first asks questions about how the natural world
generally operates; the second asks how things CAME TO BE. The former looks
for natural laws in the everyday world; the latter seeks to reconstruct past
events. "Intelligent agents may have left traces of their activity in the
natural world. The historical scientist need not turn a blind eye to them."
Question: Why should we turn a blind eye to signs of ID in the development of
life?
3. Observability and testability
Is ID non-scientific because it is un-observable or untestable? A problem
arises because Neo-Darwinism is in the same category. "Although neo-Darwinism
explains many observable features of the living world, it postulates
unobservable objects and events. For example, the mutational events that
allegedly produced reptiles, birds, mammals, and even humans have never been
observed--nor will they ever be. Similarly, the transitional forms that occupy
the branching points on Darwin's tree of life are also unobservable....The
unobservable character of Darwinism becomes especially plain when proponents
try to reconcile the fossil evidence with their theory....[Darwinists] account
for unobserved fossil forms by invoking unobserved geological processes."
Another query is whether ID is falsifiable. Sure it is: "Experience will show
that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is
necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed
instances of purely physcial or chemical antecedents producing such
information."
Question: If Darwinism invokes unobserved natural mechanisms and processes,
why can't ID do the same?
4. Is ID merely a religion in disguise?
"Criticizing [ID] on that basis begs the question of whether it is
scientifically warranted. In science, the origin of an idea is supposed to be
irrelevant to its validity. What matters is not the source but whether the
idea is logically consistent and empirically supportable. If it is, what
justification is there for excluding it from the classroom?"
Question: What justification is there from excluding it from the classroom?
Jim