The problem with this angle is the presumption that only those things which can be explained or predicted by science are true. Any proposition that some things are, by their very nature, unpredictable or inexplicable is dismissed as religious quackery. Is the study of the operation of independent, intelligent decision definitively not science then?
Are "social sciences" summarily judged to be mislabeled precisely because they study the frequently unpredictable, often inexplicable behaviors of intelligent beings? Are anthropologists to be ejected from the sphere of serious science because they deal with the imprecise analysis of the evidence of historical human activity, deducing the activities and motivations of countless intelligent beings by analyzing the fruits of that intelligence?
Why then is the very notion of science being applied to the study of the fruits of a greater Intelligence so categorically repulsive? Is it so reprehensible to think of biology, astronomy, et al in the same terms as anthropology? Much can be learned while some may only be speculated. That's OK. The mere fact that parts of the puzzle are, by their very nature, unknowable shouldn't be such a crisis-inducing idea to scientists. As with other imprecise sciences, there is still much valuable knowledge to be gained with this approach.
The presumption isn't that "only those things which can be explained or predicted by science are true", but that only things that can be explained AND predict are SCIENCE. "Intelligent design" by its very nature, predicts nothing, and thus is "definitively not science".
"Are "social sciences" summarily judged to be mislabeled precisely because they study the frequently unpredictable, often inexplicable behaviors of intelligent beings? Are anthropologists to be ejected from the sphere of serious science because they deal with the imprecise analysis of the evidence of historical human activity, deducing the activities and motivations of countless intelligent beings by analyzing the fruits of that intelligence?"
Despite the fact that they call themselves such, most "social sciences" are not science, either. "Imprecise analysis" has nothing to do with it. It's all about being "hard-facts based" and useful in making predictions about or explaining previously not-understood facts of science or nature.
"Why then is the very notion of science being applied to the study of the fruits of a greater Intelligence so categorically repulsive?
Nothing repulsive about it---it's just NOT SCIENCE. "Intelligent design" is METAPHYSICS, not physics. You can use the tools of science to explore metaphysical questions all you like.
"Is it so reprehensible to think of biology, astronomy, et al in the same terms as anthropology? Much can be learned while some may only be speculated. That's OK. The mere fact that parts of the puzzle are, by their very nature, unknowable shouldn't be such a crisis-inducing idea to scientists. As with other imprecise sciences, there is still much valuable knowledge to be gained with this approach.
ANY scientist forth his breakfast meal readily admits that "parts of the puzzle are, by their very nature, unknowable". The problem is that the "pushers" of "intelligent design" don't know where those limits are.
What is repugnant is a bunch of ignoramuses foisting off "non-science" AS science by lobbying boards of education and legislators.