Is IDism part of science?

[harvey1]

As many know, there is an on-going court case regarding the constitutionality of including a reference to Intelligent Design in the science curriculum of the Dover Area School District (Pennsylvania). My stance is that it is not unconstitutional for ID to be referenced as a scientific alternative explanation to natural selection. I don't see how anyone could argue that this is a religious position.

So, my question is, why do you think (or not think) that references to IDism should be forbidden given that there are no known scientific processes to account for many evolutionary features of the natural world?

(Just as clarification, I personally don't think IDism is correct, but I don't see it as a threat to evolutionary science like some of you do.)

[palmera]

Good points, great debate. The thing is, those theories you mentioned, string theory, natural selection were developed over time through observations and are grounded in physical evidence. The one thing that cannot be subtracted from ID or its premise is God. God, in the end is the answer to every question posed. No matter what evidence is built against ID it will not influence the presupposition of God in their inquiry.

There are always going to be postulates of a number of good theories where the proponents of that theory took the postulate as being emphatically true.

Too true, but those postulates were grounded in empirical observation of the natural world. String Theory was not presupposed, but was the conclusion of observation, mathematic formulas etc. Further, String Theory isn't stagnant or absolute, but is ever expanding and changing. ID cannot make this claim about God. In ID, God as creator is an absolute which is assumed before investigation or inquiry begins.

palmera wrote:
It's not whether or not ID could be correct or not that bears the weight here, it's the fact that it's attempting to prove empirically what it already believes to be true. It starts with an answer (to everything) and proceeds to validate that belief.


That's not a good enough reason to reject a belief.

Indeed, though I am not rejecting it as a belief, nor am I rejecting the methods ID uses to validate it's beliefs. Rather, I reject calling ID a scientific endeavor. Using scientific methodology doesn't mean one is doing science if she/he uses it to prove an unfalsifiable assumption. A hypothesis is a prediction based on observation and cannot stand alone (nor can a theory) in the manner which God stands alone. Hypotheses and theories are not absolute, nor do scientists claim them to be. String Theory is not an absolute, nor is natural selection; they are stepping stones to a greater understanding of the world. God on the other hand is an absolute beginning and end to all inquiry, therefore is not falsifiable nor predictable. It's not pure science. Science is not self-validating, but is fallible and testable.

[harvey1]

Rather, I reject calling ID a scientific endeavor. Using scientific methodology doesn't mean one is doing science if she/he uses it to prove an unfalsifiable assumption.

I agree, it's not a scientific endeavor. I would say it is a scientific alternative. That's all. The reason why I say it is a scientific alternative is because there is some small chance that it might be true to some degree. I doubt it, but we are new to the universe and have no conception as to whether life is more conducive to evolve somewhere else (again, I'm very skeptical of that).

God on the other hand is an absolute beginning and end to all inquiry, therefore is not falsifiable nor predictable. It's not pure science. Science is not self-validating, but is fallible and testable.

I agree with you, however string theory is a good example of a theory that is not driven by observables that has qualified its success. From what I can tell, there is absolutely no physical evidence for strings. The evidence is solely mathematical consistency and beauty as it relates to existing physical theories. I have no problem with that. I'm not comparing string theory in any shape or form to IDism, but I think IDism could become a string theory if it were true. I don't think it is true, so I don't think it could become a string theory. I think the hypothesis is based on some good observations, but the conclusions are wrong.

Thanks for the good comments...

[Jose]

Yikes! Go to a meeting, and in your absence a whole thread appears from nowhere. Talk about creationism.

I have no problem with anyone starting with some observations and proposing an explanation. Any explanation is fine. I'm happy to call it a scientific hypothesis, even. I dont' even care if it's religious. What matters is the next step. What predictions does it make? Are they borne out?

ID suffers from making no predictions. It's a default. "Gee, I think this is complicated, so god did it." At the very least, this makes it a pretty useless hypothesis.

Even that isn't the real problem with ID. The problem is that the "science" behind it is fake. This is a serious claim, so I offer the following support:

Complex Specified Information requires that the information be specified beforehand. Only then is it the least bit relevant to calculate the probability that the information would be achieved naturally. Without prior specification, the resulting information is no more than what happened when the mechanism went through one round of doing what it does. More importantly, prior specification is not a part of evolution. The ID folks are doing all this math to rule out something we already know to be bunk. They are not addressing evolution. Therefore, this argument of theirs is not an alternative to evolution.

Irreducible Complexity is defined as something that fails if one part is removed. There are many such things. The complexity crowd asserts that this means such structures cannot have evolved because it's virtually impossible for all of the parts to come together just right to make it work. They categorically deny the possibility that structures can evolve by slight changes, or by co-opting pre-existing structures for new purposes. They also entirely ignore systems that are very well understood, such as the mammalian inner ear. This is clearly irreducibly complex by their definition, but there is an extensive literature on evolutionary precursors. The real problem, though, is that they assume evolution works by having structures appear by the sudden creation and assembly of all of the parts. Because this is not what evolutionary theory proposes, this argument--like the prior one--addresses a false caricature of evolution. Again, ID fails to be an alternative to evolution.

What ID posits is that, whenever a new, complex structure "needed to appear," some designer (ie the Christian god) stepped in and created it. they don't (currently) insist on a particular date, and claim that they allow evolution of the "simple things." OK...if simple changes occur by evolution, but periodically god has to intervene, what do we have as a theory? Progressive Creationism. Not only does ID not address evolution, it proposes to replace it with what is clearly non-scientific progressive creationism.

ID won't satisfy people anyway. All of the complex parts of humans and chimps are the same. Therefore, to accept ID is to accept the teaching of human descent from an ape-like ancestor, and the common ancestry of humans and chimps. Indeed, one must accept common descent of all of life, because the only thing that god is allowed to do is tinker. "Ooooh...we need an eye. Here, I'll make one. OK, guys, go back to evolving while I take a nap."

[harvey1]

ID suffers from making no predictions. It's a default. "Gee, I think this is complicated, so god did it." At the very least, this makes it a pretty useless hypothesis.

Sure, it's useless as of Sep.29, 2005. I could say the same about Maupertuis' hypothesis of common descent. It didn't provide any predictions and it was a pretty useless hypothesis. If the year were 1805, would Maupertuis deserve mention in a high school biology textbook. I say if the community supporting that school desired Maupertuis' "ludicrous and useless" hypothesis to be mentioned, then why not? What is the harm in (oh my gosh) hearing what some fringe scientists think?

Complex Specified Information requires that the information be specified beforehand. Only then is it the least bit relevant to calculate the probability that the information would be achieved naturally. Without prior specification, the resulting information is no more than what happened when the mechanism went through one round of doing what it does. More importantly, prior specification is not a part of evolution. The ID folks are doing all this math to rule out something we already know to be bunk. They are not addressing evolution. Therefore, this argument of theirs is not an alternative to evolution.

Hmm... Physics has faced a very similar situation with the extraordinary coincidences in the values of a number of physical constants. The horizon problem and the flatness problem even became the impetus for widescale acceptance of inflationary theory proposed in the U.S. by Alan Guth. Currently, it is fashionable to propose the strong anthropic principle to explain certain coincidences that many physicists believe are needed to account for the complexity seen in the cosmos.

But, again. I'm not arguing that IDism is a scientific endeavor. I'm only saying that it is an scientific alternative just like Maupertuis' common descent hypothesis was a scientific alternative to creationism back in the late 18th century. I do not think IDism is right, not by a longshot.

The complexity crowd asserts that this means such structures cannot have evolved because it's virtually impossible for all of the parts to come together just right to make it work. They categorically deny the possibility that structures can evolve by slight changes, or by co-opting pre-existing structures for new purposes. They also entirely ignore systems that are very well understood, such as the mammalian inner ear. This is clearly irreducibly complex by their definition, but there is an extensive literature on evolutionary precursors. The real problem, though, is that they assume evolution works by having structures appear by the sudden creation and assembly of all of the parts. Because this is not what evolutionary theory proposes, this argument--like the prior one--addresses a false caricature of evolution. Again, ID fails to be an alternative to evolution.

It seems here you are supporting metaphysical naturalism. I think many theistic evolutionists, non-IDers, would quite agree that IDism is not needed to account for the evolution of mammilian inner ears, but this does not mean that theistic evolutionists believe that metaphysical naturalism is the only alternate explanation. You can have a quite natural evolutionary process that tends toward complexity for other non-metaphysically natural reasons. Science, I believe, cannot support a metaphysical view due to its fallibilistic nature. Science can certainly offer natural models that account for the complexity (e.g., natural selection) without requiring an outside intelligence to intervene or guide the process, but this is what is lacking in pure natural selective models. Since these models are lacking for many of the complex features of the natural world, I think it is unwarranted for science to support metaphysical naturalism, even with a modest amount of fallibilism. Since physics itself cannot support a metaphysical naturalist claim, then why on earth would a field with as many uncertainties as biological evolution be able to support such a claim?

I agree that "irreducible complexity" cannot rule out metaphysical naturalism (as the IDers contend), but it certainly is sufficient evidence to wipe out any hopes that science will sometime soon announce its scientific proof of metaphysical naturalism.

ID won't satisfy people anyway. All of the complex parts of humans and chimps are the same. Therefore, to accept ID is to accept the teaching of human descent from an ape-like ancestor, and the common ancestry of humans and chimps. Indeed, one must accept common descent of all of life, because the only thing that god is allowed to do is tinker. "Ooooh...we need an eye. Here, I'll make one. OK, guys, go back to evolving while I take a nap."

I agree that IDism isn't for those seeking comfort from the facts of common descent. I don't even know if the ID crowd would disagree with that. I think what ID is, is a fringe alternative to natural selection and macroevolution, at least as the sole cause of speciation. It doesn't have a theory in place. No signatures have been identified. Hence, no predictions that can be scientifically discovered. That doesn't mean it can't develop into that if it happened to be true (which as I must keep mentioning, I don't believe it is).

My personal view is that if IDism were hypothetically found to be true, then we would be looking at extraterrestrial involvement versus divine involvement. The argument for minimalist interventionalism would better suit those with a portable genetic lab. Of course, that only begs the question on how they evolved. And that just puts this hypothesis a little outside what I consider reasonable (although no more unreasonable than this scientific hypothesis!).

[Alien]

I wonder how it is possible to compare a scientific theory with a non-scientific theory.

Evolution and ID are both theories, because they both try to give an explanation, an answer to a question.

They are both inductive theories, because they start from a result and try to explain how it was possible to come to that result.

But Evolution is falsifiable, whilst ID is not. Therefore, Evolution is scientific, and ID is not. And the proof of this categorisation is given by the fact that Evolution can be (and actually was) refined and adjusted by correcting or modifying or adding some parts, in order to match tests and results, as in any scientific theory.
ID can potentially be modified in any detail, and in any level, without any need of matching anything. Not being falsifiable, it is not scientific, and it can only be an act of faith.

A quick example to support what I'm saying: ID means Intelligent Design.
Good.
In order for me to scientifically analyse the theory, I would then like to know how much "intelligent" a design can be quantified before becoming "stupid". Without this relative quantification, the theory remains highly non-scientific, and I can even produce a variant called SD (Stupid Design: the stupid behaviour of humans is the "proof" that someone had some fun in designing us in this way; imagine his laughing if I try to fly from the Grand Canyon without wings!).

I don't like the principle of teaching a non-scientific theory as if it were a scientific theory. It is against the Epistemological Principle of Science. It increases confusion and misunderstandings. Faith and Science should never be mixed up.

[harvey1]

But Evolution is falsifiable, whilst ID is not. Therefore, Evolution is scientific, and ID is not.

I'd like you to think hypothetically for a second. Let's imagine that over the coarse of the next 100 years humans make contact with ET, and ET communicates to us that they have visited our planet and were responsible for at least 150-200,000 genetic changes to a number of lifeforms which they thought would bring sufficient complexity to our world in order to support intelligent life. Of course, the question is asked on why ID was necessary for Earth but not for their own evolution, and they explain that their planet was closer to a mini-black hole, and what they did on earth was similar to the natural consequences of being close to a mini-black hole. They also say that they left a number of genetic signatures in life's DNA that can prove conclusively that this is the actual history of earth.

------------------------------

Okay, we both agree that this far-fetched. It won't happen. However, this is the point that I want to impress, there is nothing in science that can conclusively and irrevocably show that this scenario cannot happen. It could happen, but we believe that it is not likely to happen. The reason that we believe it is not likely to happen is not based on any physical evidence per se, it is more of a philosophical argument that makes it implausible. For example, why not launch a genetic bomb that immediately brings forth complex life right away? Why did they go through so much trouble in some areas of biological design and go through so little extra effort to make life a little more pleasant for the creatures inflicted with debilitating illnesses and the like? Couldn't ET been a little more efficient? Why work so long on a particular genus only to see it go extinct? These kinds of questions is why we must discount this kind of ID theory. It's not that we have overwhelming evidence that ET couldn't have visited, couldn't have experimented with life here, couldn't have selectively done genetic engineering, etc.. Nor is it a situation where we must reject this approach solely because there is no physical evidence. There are many beliefs in science where we believe something happened because it is more parsimonious to believe that (e.g., the natural origin of life via chemical processes on the early earth).

Also, IDism is falsifiable in a non-absolutist kind of way. In absolute terms, no scientific belief is falsifiable, Popper failed to demonstrate a falsificationist philosophy for science. It's not that Popper wasn't smart enough, there's inherent problems with falsificationism (just like there are inherent problems with verificationalism). However, for all practical purposes (FAPP), scientific views can be falsified. I think this is also true for IDism. For example, an cellular automata or computer simulation could easily demonstrate how IDism can be falsified. If you can show how complexity can evolve naturally in a simulation, then this falsifies (i.e., FAPP) a key premise of IDism (namely, that life has irreducible complex features that cannot in principle be naturally explained).

In order for me to scientifically analyse the theory, I would then like to know how much "intelligent" a design can be quantified before becoming "stupid". Without this relative quantification, the theory remains highly non-scientific, and I can even produce a variant called SD (Stupid Design: the stupid behaviour of humans is the "proof" that someone had some fun in designing us in this way; imagine his laughing if I try to fly from the Grand Canyon without wings!).

I don't know how IDers would answer this objection, but I cannot see it as reason to reject the hypothesis as non-scientific (i.e., not capable of being scientifically analyzed). If a phenomena exists, e.g. irreducible complexity, then this is not the first challenge of a hypothesis that proposes a mechanism to explain the phenomena. There are many instances in the history of science where many details such as the exact boundaries of the proposed mechanism and the influence of some prior understood mechanism were not clear. For example, there is often debate within evolution which factors may have been due to random genetic mutation, and which factors may have been due to natural selection. Biology is not like physics where we often have a mathematical theory that encompasses our understanding of the prior mechanism (e.g., Einsteinian versus Newtonian, QED versus electrodynamics, etc.). One of the key first struggles for a hypothesis trying to explain a phenomena is first trying to show that the phenomena is real and needs explaining. As I understand it, this is one of chief tasks that IDers have tried to address. One of the chief problems, though, is that most evolutionists are metaphysical naturalists, so their philosophy precludes the phenomena as even something that needs a different hypothesis besides current natural mechanisms to explain.

I don't like the principle of teaching a non-scientific theory as if it were a scientific theory. It is against the Epistemological Principle of Science. It increases confusion and misunderstandings. Faith and Science should never be mixed up.

Agreed. We need to remove metaphysical naturalism (faith) from the teaching of science, and we need to at least consider all attractive alternatives to explain the natural world in which we see. I don't think ID counts as one of those attractive alternatives, but the alternative has a right to be listed as an alternative within a classroom if the majority of parents in that community request their kids be exposed to the idea itself. I am not for the faith of metaphysical naturalists (basically atheists and agnostics) expelling all other ideas that are out there simply because those ideas contradict their faith. I don't think that is good for science, and it's not good for the kids who might pursue science had they heard that it is possible to hold other opinions of the world than the ones purported by the atheists and agnostics.

[palmera]

Okay, we both agree that this far-fetched. It won't happen. However, this is the point that I want to impress, there is nothing in science that can conclusively and irrevocably show that this scenario cannot happen. It could happen, but we believe that it is not likely to happen.

True, but this is not the point. Is has nothing to do with whether ID could actually be true or not, it's the fact that IDers assume that what they presuppose is true before any inquiry begins. This is why ID is not science. It doesn't matter at all if it could be true, or could be false. The point is that they assume ID to be true to begin with thus negating any real scientific inquiry, any growth, any advancement at all because all questions that could arise are already answered: Go did it.

Also, IDism is falsifiable in a non-absolutism kind of way. In absolute terms, no scientific belief is falsifiable

Outside the realm of ID it's easy speculate that ID is falsifiable, but what makes it un-scientific is that the people who believe ID, those who actually go about the business of ID theory, already assume an answer to every conceivable question. Within the framework of ID, God is the answer, is absolute and un-falsifiable; thus it cannot be regarded as science. You're right it is the philosophy behind ID that makes it unscientific. Within the realm of science you won't find many scientists saying there's not a high probability of life on other planets within our own galaxy. But the difference is, through empirical comsological observations, through mathematics, and through testing such conclusions have been reached. They were not assumed to be true regardless of any evidence, but were rather concluded based on the evidence obtained. Even so, such conclusions, by there very nature (within science) are subject to new theories, new data- ID's GOd theory is not and never can be.

[Jose]

I have no problem with alternative theories being discussed, provided that they really are alternatives, and really are scientific. But, perhaps my previous statements were insufficiently clear. Let me put it this way:

The model of evolution that ID science shows is wrong:

• evolution of complex structures is achieved by having the various parts of those structures (i.e. the genes coding for them) appear in the exact form we now find them
• evolution has had, since the very beginning, the plan of creating humans

Because ID shows very clearly that this model is wrong, ID is a valid alternative to this model.

The model of evolution that is described by true evolutionary theory:

• changes occasionally occur in DNA sequences, creating genetic diversity in populations of organisms
• some organisms leave more offspring than others, either by random events (genetic drift) or by virtue of being better at surviving and reproducing in their particular environment (selection)
• as generations pass, the numbers of individuals with some traits increases while the numbers of individuals with other traits decreases
• because the causes of DNA sequence change are physical/chemical in nature (oxidation, radiation, etc) mutations cannot be targeted to any specific sequence, so the array of genetic diversity in any population cannot be planned (ie there is no way to aim toward a goal; there cannot be a goal)
• because mutations change DNA sequences that already exist, change occurs by modification of pre-existing structures

The first parts of this model have been demonstrated beyond doubt. This is a factual part of biological science. The last two parts of this model are a necessary consequence of the demonstrated mechanism; they are in direct opposition to the pretend model that ID addresses.

Therefore, ID is not an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to a fake model of evolution. If we taught this fake model, then ID would be an alternative that could be taught with it. But, we teach the model of evolution that is based on how biology works, and ID has not addressed this model.

The notion of "complexity" isn't an issue. The ID folks claim that it is, but they have absolutely no way of showing that perfectly natural mechanisms that are known cannot produce it. They have only shown that a biologically impossible model cannot produce it.

What is the harm in (oh my gosh) hearing what some fringe scientists think?

It's pretty simple, really. There's not enough time in a semester to cover the necessary information as it is. Covering all of the fringe ideas will dilute the necessary stuff even further. Nonetheless, there is some value in discussing once-popular, but now outmoded ideas, in order to put our current thinking into an historical context. The trouble with treating ID this way is that the scientific analysis proves that it is silly--by which I mean what I have said above. To make ID appear to be a valid alternative to evolution, it is necessary to compare it to a fake model of evolution, and not to the real thing. Putting this into the classroom would amount to teaching that a particular religious view is without merit. Just as it is inappropriate to teach in favor of any particular religion, I believe that it is inappropriate to teach against any particular religion. We should stick with the actual science, and not bring in religious alternatives.

It seems here you are supporting metaphysical naturalism. I think many theistic evolutionists, non-IDers, would quite agree that IDism is not needed to account for the evolution of mammilian inner ears, but this does not mean that theistic evolutionists believe that metaphysical naturalism is the only alternate explanation.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. I have no idea what metaphysical naturalism is. I support the teaching of evolutionary theory as outlined above, and I see no point in bringing in biologically impossible models merely to show that they are impossible. I use the inner ear simply as an example where ID logic fails. The inner ear is irreducibly complex. By ID definition, this means that it cannot have evolved naturally. By ID logic, the data that exist, identifying evolutionary precursors, cannot be. This is an example that illustrates why ID simply is not a valid alternative. Even by its own definitions, it fails when confronted with data that already exist.

I think what ID is, is a fringe alternative to natural selection and macroevolution, at least as the sole cause of speciation. It doesn't have a theory in place. No signatures have been identified. Hence, no predictions that can be scientifically discovered. That doesn't mean it can't develop into that if it happened to be true

As it turns out, there are lots of mechanisms of speciation; selection is by no means the only one. But ID doesn't address speciation, because that occurs without the appearance of new "complex structures." In any event, ID could conceivably develop into a theory if, as you say, it turned out to be true. So far, it is a strange movement, incorporating mathematics and biology words, tilting at windmills.

[Jose]

For example, there is often debate within evolution which factors may have been due to random genetic mutation, and which factors may have been due to natural selection.

If I may humbly suggest, no such debate exists. The reason is simple: mutation and selection are not alternatives. They are part of one process.

Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Once a mutation occurs, and is passed to offspring, it becomes part of the genetic diversity of the population. Natural selection acts by "choosing" from among the various genetic variations. If there were no mutation, and no diversity, there would be nothing that selection could choose among. If there were no selection, the random mutation would have little or no consequences in terms of evolutionary change.

The debates about the mechanisms of evolution all recognize that there is always genetic variation. There must be genetic variation, because it is impossible to prevent mutation. Therefore, the debates address the relative contributions of different mechanisms of "differential reproduction." Selection is one way. Environmental conditions cause some genetic variations to be sick, or otherwise poorly suited to the conditions; these have few offspring. Other variations are better suited; these have more offspring. The guys with the most offspring win.

Genetic drift is another way, which has nothing to do with who's better or worse. It's just luck. If 90% of the population is killed in a flood, the remaining 10% may lack some of the genetic variations that used to be in the population, or they may contain a variation that was extremely rare before. The few variations that remain after the flood are the ones that rebuild the population, and their genes become the norm.

It's not easy to determine what factors became common due to selection, and what factors are the result of non-selective forces such as genetic drift. Is tongue-rolling in humans the result of selection? I dunno...does it give anyone an advantage or disadvantage? What about skin color? There are clear selective advantages for different colors in different environments. What about having hair on our heads...and having it continue to grow forever, so we need haircuts?

One of the chief problems, though, is that most evolutionists are metaphysical naturalists, so their philosophy precludes the phenomena as even something that needs a different hypothesis besides current natural mechanisms to explain.

I think you are over-interpreting the evidence here. Most evolutionists (at least, the ones I know) simply look at the data, and ask what the possible explanations are. Evolutionary mechanisms are so well known, and so well understood, that these mechanisms typically turn out to be among the strongest of the alternatives. While it is always possible to say "or maybe god did it" (which is the entire theory of Intelligent Design), this is both untestable and non-predictive. That makes it non-science, because useful scientific explanations have to lead somewhere.

There are some scientists who consider god to be outside the realm of science. In the sense that god is supernatural, and natural science is merely natural, well...god is outside of science. In the sense that "god did it" provides no insight into avenues of investigation for further understanding, religious explanations are outside of science. More importantly, though, there are no data that indicate any gods anywhere, so there's no reason to invoke them.

You must recognize that scientific explanations build upon prior scientific explanations. The more you know, the more you can build on it and learn even more. After a couple hundred years of scientific investigations failing to provide evidence for gods of any kind, it gets harder and harder to build gods into the explanations. So, for most scientists, there's no automatic refusal to consider gods. There's just no reason to bring them in.

I note, however, that space aliens seeding the earth with life is actually in the realm of scientific explanations. Unlike the Discovery Institute's "true" form of ID (the designer is the Christian god), the space alien model makes actual predictions and is ultimately testable. The model predicts that we should be able to make contact with these creatures. It is testable, in that we might be able to ask them about it. Scientific though it may be, however, it is still unwarranted. The data don't point in that direction. Most importantly, the logic used by the ID folks does not indicate that a designer is needed. They aren't addressing the right model of evolution, so their conclusions are not valid.

Why bring in an alternative that has no support other than "it feels good to me."?

[harvey1]

...IDers assume that what they presuppose is true before any inquiry begins. This is why ID is not science.

Maybe so, but this is not what I've read. I see that they conclude that certain complex features cannot depend on pure chance alone after having considered the kind of probability needed for certain structures (e.g., DNA) to have evolved naturally. Therefore it is not a premise.

they assume ID to be true to begin with thus negating any real scientific inquiry, any growth, any advancement at all because all questions that could arise are already answered: Go[d] did it.

Well, roughly, it seems there's two parts to their hypothesis. 1) Certain biological structures could not have evolved by pure chance, 2) Intelligent design is the only reasonable explanation if these structures are not dependent on evolving by chance. The first argument is certainly the domain of science. Science can propose solutions bit by bit, and slowly eat away at this argument. The second argument is more of a "the universe created itself" kind of argument. There's no way to test it unless signatures can be provided. I don't think the argument is untestable in principle, it's untestable in its present form. However, there are many hypotheses that are untestable in their present form, so it would have to be shown that in principle this part of the hypothesis is untestable. I don't see how this could possibly be shown. There's always the possibility that at some future time there will appear an oddity in protein folding or some other structure, that will not have a natural explanation under currently understood mechanisms. That possibility keeps the "in principle untestable" aspect of (2) as undetermined. The same undetermined feature could always exist with string theory, or whatever theory that ultimately becomes our quantum theory of gravity.

those who actually go about the business of ID theory, already assume an answer to every conceivable question. Within the framework of ID, God is the answer, is absolute and un-falsifiable; thus it cannot be regarded as science.

I cannot say if this is true or not. I don't have enough experience of what the IDers are saying has this quality. I don't see why they would have to put themselves in this position anymore than the physicists who suggested that the universe may have created itself need to put themselves in that position. All one is forced to say is that this is an alternative that has scientific plausibility, and that we need to find signatures to make it a scientific theory of any substantial sort. If IDers are foolish enough to get dogmatic, then that's their own folly. They would be wise not to do so IMHO.

But the difference is, through empirical comsological observations, through mathematics, and through testing such conclusions have been reached. They were not assumed to be true regardless of any evidence, but were rather concluded based on the evidence obtained. Even so, such conclusions, by there very nature (within science) are subject to new theories, new data- ID's GOd theory is not and never can be.

Again, without getting into the personalities of the people behind ID, I think that it stands out as a possibility. For me, it is exactly equivalent to the hypothesis that the universe created itself, perhaps with a little more credibility than that since it doesn't have the violation of causality issue that a universe creating itself would have. That makes it a scientific hypothesis in my book, and therefore if a community wants to mention the hypothesis in a textbook, then I have no problem with that. In fact, I welcome bizarre theories such as these in student textbooks because it opens up the possibilities of what might be true. I personally think that's what engages students and makes them take serious interest in science in ways that well-established scientific theories cannot always do. It's perhaps the reason why science fiction is one of the largest recruiting tools for a new generation of scientists.