I read this over on UcD:
One can argue that as an empirical matter ID has failed to demonstrate that living things bear indicia of design. Many scientists would disagree, but competing interpretations of the data are what good science is all about. May the best interpretation prevail. But some scientists go further than advancing competing interpretations of the data and argue that the search for indicia of design in living things is in principle illicit.
The bit about “in principle illicit” interests me in this post. While I agree that science should not include references to the deity as the casual factor and that the most teleology is out of bounds still it seems to me that there should be some name given to studies like ID that use the tools of mathematics and science but that desire to break the above limitations.
Maybe we should call it “Natural Philosophy” to reuse an old term??? Am wondering what Ted as historian of science would think of that or if he might have a better proposal.
Note I am not discussing the validity of ID in terms of demonstrating what they propose, just a name.
I wonder if such a name might quiet down the constant harping on the science issue by ID folks.