ID is science, if you just don’t demand scientific results
This is just a short post, as I don’t wish to get into all of the issues of “materialism” and what-not that the Dishonesty Institute uses and confuses to its advantage. But here’s a howler direct from the DI:
Regarding the first hurdle, Lofaso advocates a materialistic definition of science that wrongly excludes intelligent design. She uses such a bloated definition of the “scientific method” in order to dogmatically exclude any alternative to evolution from the classroom: “If the scientific method is taught correctly, there is no confusion in presenting evolution as the dominant scientific theory, and there would be no confusion that evolutionary theories are anything but absolute […].” Yet as I discussed in Part 1, intelligent design meets any standard definition of the scientific method (that leaves off the dead weight of materialist requirements).
Suffice it presently to say that the “dead weight of materialist requirements” only amount in philosophical terms to the meaningful cause and effect explanations that science demands, rather than silly woo.
And one of the reasons this anonymous bozo insists that ID is science is that it makes falsifiable claims, one of which I discussed in part 5 (8-19-08~) of my Darwin’s Black Box post. In that sense, I’d charitably allow that it is science, in the sense that other failed and falsified hypotheses are, even though I would hasten to add that the current manifestation of ID is by no means scientific as a whole, falsified or not.
The point has never been “materialism”. If we go back to Kant, who was used heavily in the formalization of science, the issue is simply not to use metaphysical speculation in place of “practical reason” in science. And because by no means do they leave metaphysical speculation (Behe is quite clearly pushing a “supernatural” designer in DBB), since they refuse to acknowledge the design principles (like evidence of rational thought) that would be used to identify alien designs, they completely fail the science test.
It’s still amusing to see them going on about how their “monopoly money science” should be understood to be legitimate science.