Emery, in the light of your interest in Dover, you might like to take a look at this post:A Post Wedge World
Thanks wonders. From what I can tell of his argument, I agree. Just because ID proponents may have a religious agenda, that shouldn't preclude ID from being in the science classroom, if it indeed is science. Science is science, and if a theory uses the scientific method and withstands peer-reviewed scrutiny, then the beliefs of the people who promote it should not matter.
The problem that the Kitzmiller court found, however, was that ID did not use the scientific method, that it appealed to supernaturalism, something that science should not do. Science is about what we can discover about the natural world. If we want to talk about the supernatural world, fine. But let's put that in the appropriate curriculum, not the science curriculum.
I also don't think that arguing for design is not scientific per se. For example, if some ancient race of aliens did design the first primitive life forms as an experiment, and we are the result of that experiment having evolved over the millennia, then we ostensibly could discover that through science. But as I understand the argument, there is simply no support for the existence of such a designer--alien or divine. Therefore the scientific method would not warrant a leap to the conclusion that such being(s) exist, and should stay, for now, within the realm of evolutionary biology that we do know about.
I don't rule out the possibility that there could be a designer somewhere in the chain of events, that we just haven't discovered yet. But I do know that the only reliable way we have of knowing something is the scientific method, and perhaps it's a limitation of science, but it just does not warrant belief in a designer yet.
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
- Heywood Broun