Reply #22: Objection to claims that "ID is science" should note: (1) ID does not seek

[struggle4progress]

naturalistic explanations, and (2) ID is not disprovable

Scientific theory building involves examination of alleged material causes, governed by natural physical laws in space and time. An alleged "theory" cannot be scientific, unless there is a way to discover that the alleged "theory" is wrong. Science is often concerned with discovering what is currently wrong with its theories, by experimental observation/measurement and calculation, and then trying to improve the results. The arguments for ID are not disprovable in this sense, hence cannot be improved by the scientific method, and are therefore philosophical, rather than scientific

Proponents of ID typically make philosophical arguments, such as The species on earth are so complicated, that they could only have been designed. Such a sweeping statement cannot be the subject of direct scientific argument; at the level of scientific investigation, one must investigate much more focused questions, such as How do micro-organisms evolve under exposure to anti-biotics? or Can we systematize such-and-such a portion of the fossil record, consistent with our best estimates of fossil ages based on our knowledge of geology?