Why ID isn’t “science”

Karl Popper’s classic characterisation of scientific thought as providing hypotheses which can be falsified provides a pretty unarguable definition of science as far as I can see. There used to be much debate about this in A level sociology courses (which is where my limited knowledge of epistemology comes from) and there are other valid descriptions of how science works.

However, what distinguishes science from other types of thought is that scientific theories can be tested.

Intelligent design cannot be tested. I can’t really bring myself to say that the Theory of Intelligent Design can’t be tested. I don’t think it constitutes much of a theory, in that it doesn’t explain anything. I can’t even understand why believers feel threatened by evolutionary theory, which basically comes down to –

An organism that is best fitted to its environment is more likely to survive and reproduce than one that isn’t. It is likely to pass on the characteristics that helped it to survive to its offspring. This means that, over time, groups of that organism will tend to show more of the traits that favour survival and the characteristics of the population will change.

I know this is a simplistic interpretation (due to my limited understanding) but it is a theory that can be tested. Quite simply, if populations of organisms didn’t adapt to changes in their environments, it would be easy to spot this.

But, Intelligent Design? It is an “explanation” that cannot be tested. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like about the unknowable. I believe hundreds of eccentric things myself. Even I would have a problem if someone suggested that my ideas should be taught in schools as alternatives to science.

This was sparked by TW’s posts intelligent-design-in-the-uk and blogwar.