OK, one more before we take off. John Derbyshire has a slightly different perspective on the ID controversy:

I would like to see some scientifically literate school board somewhere mandate stickers in biology textbooks stating that "INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY, BUT A CRITIQUE." Then we might be getting somewhere with this dismal business.

Just so.

Now, really, see you later. She's dragging me out the door, fingers still frantically stabbing at the keyboard. Why didn't I get a wireless keyb....

I personally preferred the second part of the sticker, encouraging students to be critical and analytical in their thought in general.

Amen!
A critique, yes, but not a scientific critique. Perhaps, its a philosophical or metaphysical critique. One may not be convinced that modern evolution theory adequately explains the diversity and history of life on earth. Bringing in an "Intelligent Designer" violates the materialistic methodology of science. Isn't this obvious? Saying the Intelligent Designer, or, God did it, is not a scientific explanation.
A supernatural (theological?) scientific methodology boggles the mind. If accepted, one may theorize that angels are responsible for the motion of "heavenly" bodies. Perhaps, the devil is a root cause of thermonuclear fusion. Why not supernatural science? Then, anything goes!

Bringing in an "Intelligent Designer" violates the materialistic methodology of science. Isn't this obvious? Saying the Intelligent Designer, or, God did it, is not a scientific explanation.

ID *is* actually a workable scientific theory, or you can certainly make a workable ID theory. It's just not the simplest theory, although it probably has the simplest adherents. But there's plenty of evidence that suggests that evolution actually happened instead (hey: we have the source code now, we can actually see evidence of evolution actually happening!)

But it is a theory, and it is a logical theory. It's just that the world very, very probably doesn't work that way.

Why not supernatural science?

Why not?

The thing is that nobody with any sanity uses that as a 'normal hypothesis'. Normal hypothesis's have to be simple, which pretty much means chosen using Occam's razor. So it's not that science can't handle these theories, it's just that nobody has found any hard evidence for them, except a bunch of books, that a bunch of people claim are holy books- "no, honestly they are" :-)

For whatever reason, I've been having a hard time viewing a couple recent posts using IE. This one in particular, even though the code looks correct...

Thanks, John--I sometimes forget to check with IE. There was a little typo in the second link tag.

Woolard, you are placing your conclusion into your definition. That is a tautology. You are saying nothing.

I don't understand Woolard's response.
He seems to claim that Occam's razor is the basis of scientific methodology, while allowing a supernatural methodology. "God did it," is a simple explanation. It is more direct and easier to comprehend than the synthetic theory of evolution, yet, it is not science and evolution theory is. My claim that scientific methodology must be materialistic (borrowed from Eugenie Scott) seems to be more reasonable. The simplest materialistic explanation is how Occam's razor is commonly understood. "Hard evidence" for the supernatural would make the supernatural natural, wouldn't it? I am assuming that "hard evidence" is empirical evidence. Empirical evidence for the supernatural? Please give an example or two?
Woolard, why are supernatural explanations sound science? Please explain?
If the simplest explanation is in fact not the one supported by the best evidence, would you choose the simplest? Is the modern explanation for gravity simpler than Newton's? Sometimes defining "the simplest" is problematic.
I am not at all convinced that ID is a scientific theory. Show me where I am wrong?