We're looking for an objective approach that looks at both sides.

So says John Calvert, arguing in hearings in Kansas that so-called “Intelligent Design” be taught along with evolution in Kansas schools. This is an interesting use of the word “objective”, and not one I’m familiar with.

There’s nothing objective about Intelligent Design, and there’s nothing scientific about it. It may be dressed up in scientific language, but it’s not science. ID starts with the answer, and tries to backfill the scientific method to give the appearance of science.

The answer ID starts with is that there is intelligence behind certain features of the universe. They claim that these features are better explained by an intelligent design mechanism rather than the unguided process of natural selection. The proponents of ID can claim to be doing science, but that doesn’t mean their process is scientific.

Let’s review how science works. You make observations, you formulate a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis. So, we could give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and say that rather than starting with the answer, they’re starting with a hypothesis that “life and its diversity were designed by intelligence for a purpose.”

But we immediately run into a problem. We can call it a hypothesis, but that doesn’t make it science. Before we can call it science, it has to be a falsifiable hypothesis. The ID folks say their theory better explains the observation of the universe than evolution, but they fail to indicate any way in which it could fail. There are no implications of their hypothesis that could be tested and show that the hypothesis is wrong.

Ok, so it’s not science. What’s the harm in teaching it in schools? The harm is exactly because it’s not science. This battle is not really about evolution vs. creationism (which is effectively what ID is, dressed up in more sciency-sounding language), it’s about what science is and how science is done. We’re already a pretty scientifically illiterate society; if we start teaching high school kids that things like ID are science and just as valid and objective as evolution, then we’ve given up. We ceased to give them any mechanism for evaluating whether something is valid or not.

The scientific method says that ID is not science, so ID proponents want to throw out the scientific method. They regard evolution as “antagonistic to theistic religions”, and leading to “non-theistic belief systems, laws, morals, and ethics that sharply conflict with those derived from the major religions of the world.” Does this really sound like they’re looking for an objective approach? To paraphrase from The Princess Bride: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.