Intelligent Design is not Science

Today's criticism aimed at Charles Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' is mostly religiously motivated.

So called Intelligent Design is not by any stretch of the imagination Science. Intelligent Design is the heir to Creationism sometimes, oxymoronically, referred to as Scientific Creationism.

Intelligent Design proposes that Science is not able to sufficiently explain the organisms we find in the Natural World using the data available under materialism and naturalism.

Science is not necessarily materialistic, though. Materialism is a metaphysical stance which, indeed, is shared by most of todays scientist, but, importantly, this stance is not indispensable to Science.

That Science is naturalistic, on the other hand, is true. Because naturalism is the label best fit to describe the method of science that has been in use since Galileo.

It is the the Scientific Method, naturalism, which causes problems for Intelligent Design and Creationism when to try to aspire to Scientific status and authority.

By trying to justify ID by pointing to phenomena in nature which allegedly cannot by fully explained by natural causes ID proponents leave the realm of Science and enter that of Religion.

If something cannot be explained naturally, supernatural causes are inferred and this, by definition, is antithetical to the Scientific Method.

Science, as that activity which seeks to describe nature by natural causes, cannot contain explanations suspending the laws of nature. Period.

So if Creationists claims that Science cannot explain everything we find in nature ,should we yield to that claim?

No.

It is part of the Scientific Method to put forward new theories if those we currently hold fails in the light of the available empiric evidence.

An example is in place:

Creationist talk about 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a long, sophisticated almost scientific sound to it.

But alas, the words themselves expose the non-science of the claim. The word 'irreducible' is an assumption that a priori excludes the possibility of a natural explanation. Ergo, the argument is based on the introduction of supernatural causes and thus invalidates itself in a scientific context.

It is possible that we are currently unable to explain some of the things that Creationists claim to be examples of 'irreducible complexity', but that does not imply that we will never be able to explain them scientifically, as the Creationists like to suppose.

To say that we cannot explain something now means that we will never be able to explain it, is a simple fallacy.

Allowing education of Creationism on par with Evolution is a grave fallacy.