According to the National Academy of Sciencesâ publication, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, science is âa particular way of knowing about the world.â
And ID is a slant of that "particular way."
ID is firmly rooted in science, but it is not itself a theory. Of course, IDers study science and some are scientists. But ID in itself is an epistemology--a body of thought that studies the nature of knowledge, its conjectures, foundations and its scope and validity. Teleology, like methodological naturalism is a scaffold for theories and hypotheses.
If science is âa particular way of knowing about the world," Then ID is certainly science.
ID isn't anti-evolution. ID is a philosophy of science that is an alternative to philosophical materialism. Intelligent Design is not truly a theory. I think of ID as a competing philosophy of Science, which omits mainstream Scienceâs non-teleological assumption. And thatâs it. Other things that make Science science, the scientific method, empiricism, are preserved.
I don't think ID needs any sort of broad coverage in high school. I just think it should be made clear that some "conclusions" of science are based upon the underpinnings of materialistic philosophy. And that there are some serious thinkers that question this assumption and are trying to evaluate whether design might be inferred. Without this slim inclusion, you're teaching materialistic philosophy to impressionable youth, and I think this is wrong.
ID is an investigation of possible teleology behind evolution; it is epistemology. You wouldnât call SETI - SETI theory, would you? ... the largest part of ID now is simply the fight for epistemology, without attachment to any hypothesis.
Obviously, science is not officially neutral on the issue of metaphysical implications because it âacceptsâ an arbitrarily attached and highly corrosive metaphysical assertion right out of the definitional starting gate - the assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology.
There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. It is merely an alternative view (viewing things from a different perspective). It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and it can also guide science.
ID is a theoretical framework within which to hypothesize specific and testable mechanisms, processes and pathways describing the nature of life on earth and its evolution over time without an a priori assumption of ateleology. ID is naturalistic not supernaturalistic. Neither intelligence nor teleology are unnatural. Design advocate Micah Sparacio says:
As far as I can tell, human design occurs within a fully constrained natural domain. I see no reason to suspect that intelligent design of any kind requires some "extranatural mechanism." Indeed, the only design that we are readily familiar with occurs within the natural order of events, so why would anyone suspect otherwise?
We should teach students not to close their minds and not to think dogmatically about Science. Theories shouldn't be "believed"; they should be advanced or demoted. Science shouldn't be taught as if theories and hypotheses are facts. Scientists themselves typically don't think that way. They are open to new ideas, and do not believe Science dogmatically; they accept provisionally. All a priori assumptions of ateleology taped haphazardly to scientific methodology should be removed and put in their proper place - the ideological trash can.
