I haven’t written about this in years, so here goes.
Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. That being the case, it has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools. (Or the science curriculum of any school, but I suppose private schools can be dumb if they want to be.)
Am I trying to avoid the teaching of religion in public schools? Hardly. I would love to see religion taught to every kid in every public school across America. As long as it’s taught as the factual history of belief in America and around the world–not religious indoctrination–I’m more than fine with it. I advocate for it.
But I digress. ID is not science. Right? Right. For one thing, it’s hypotheses are not falsifiable. Bang, right there: not science. However, you’d be surprised (or maybe you wouldn’t be) at the amount of argument I get on this point. In a recent discussion on the subject, an ID proponent offered this quote:
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists…
I googled it. It’s from here.
I offered this one from wikipedia:
Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.” The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.
I was immediately chastised for citing wikipedia–totally untrustworthy! Anyone can go there and write anything they want!
True, sort of. But the rejection is bullshit in this case. I’m sure you noticed all the little  and  notes in the quote. That’s because in the wikiepdia article they are links to footnotes. Footnotes which contain links directly to the sources cited. Like the National Academy of Sciences–who wrote exactly what the wikipedia article said they did.
Would this be good enough for the wikipedia-scoffer? Of course not.