Granville Sewell describes the UD approach to science – in a word, quit early.
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)
If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.
The actual answer is that this is an idiotic question and exposes the fundamental misconceptions that IDers have about science. In fact, I think this is one of their most accidentally-honest posts yet.
In science, if a problem emerges that we don’t have the technology or tools to understand we don’t throw our hands up in the air and say “god did it”. Historically this tactic is always premature.
You want proof ID isn’t a science? There are few better examples this Sewell’s post.
Also note Factition’s take on this very post.
We refer to this in science as an answer that is uninformative. Sure, you’ve failed to divide something further, but what does that mean? That’s why “irreducible complexity” isn’t really a useful metric, and if the intelligent design movement is truly serious about science, they will abandon this metric as a measure of whether or not something is designed.
You can’t base the test of your hypothesis on an uninformative answer. Just like I can’t base my understanding of bacteria based on my failure to find a particular bacterium. You have to base science on positive outcomes (otherwise known as informative outcomes).