But science has been able to succeed inside its box. Otherwise it'll get bogged down in orthodoxy and won't be able to support our technological society (science tends to get bound up in orthodoxy periodically in spite of its box).
With ID, you're postulating a Designer to use as a filter on the observable data. Saying "evolution is wrong" is not evidence for a Designer.
First, ID does not say evolution is wrong, it says that the ‘natural’ mechanisms alone in the processes do not make sense. Some IDers’ go further but so do some Darwinists towards the naturalism spectrum (Princeton University was a Christian College?).
It comes down to basic philosophy (at least for me).
I do not see any new science as a threat to me but can Darwinism say the same. It is general philosophy as far as the “Theory of common descent” goes…
That science has provided many benefits is true. However, that does not mean that evolution is science. It is not. There have been no benefits derived from evolutionary theory. In fact, evolutionary theory has slowed scientific advance considerably. Some examples:
1. Evolutionists challenged Mendelian genetics and said it was not true all the time. It is of course correct all the time what confused the issue was that often more than one gene was responsible for some traits but the evos sticking to their stupid melding theory tried to confuse the issue.
2. When DNA was discovered the evos insisted on the 'one gene, one protein, one trait' theory required by their stupid reductionist theory. This was found to be wrong and in fact some genes make dozens of proteins.
3. When it was found that 95% of DNA was not used to make proteins, the evos posited that the 95% of DNA was junk and useless. Luckily by then no one paid much attention to what evolutionists had to say. This was quickly found to be wrong and the non-coding DNA is now the basis for most biological research.