[C.J.W.]

"There is nothing currently scientific about intelligent design."

The notion that everything must be made to fit a naturalistic explanation is false. There are many (pseudo)scientists whose version of science is to make all observations fit a naturalistic explanation, no matter what systematic thought applied to observations actually show.

True scientists believe that science is the pursuit of the truth, not just the pursuit of naturalistic explanation. Failing to admit this leads some to a pseudo-science like evolutionism. It is especially ironic when those who believe that science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations rather than pursuit of the truth make the argument: "Science shows us that everything has a naturalistic explanation!" And they act as if it surprising that they have found all that they are willing to look for or see. There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say. They had already defined science to show what they wanted to see a priori to actually practicing science.

Note:

Fascist scholarship's "weakness is
due not to inferior training but to
the mendacity inherent in any
scholarship that overlooks or openly
repudiated all moral and spiritual values."
(Max Weinreich, Hitler's Proffessors: The
Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
against the Jewish People. (New York:
The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)

The Founders on philosophic naturalism:
"And what was their Phylosophy? Atheism; pure unadulterated
Atheism . . . . The Univer[s]e was Matter only and eternal;
Spirit was a Word Without a meaning; Liberty was a Word
Without a Meaning. There was no Liberty in the Universe; Liberty was a Word void of Sense. Every thought Word Passion Sentiment Feeling, all Motion and Action was necessary. All Beings and Attributes were of eternal Necessity. Conscience, Morality, were all nothing but Fate."
(John Adams on the French revolution
Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (Mar. 2, 1816),
in The Adams-Jefferson Letters)

The pseudo-science of evolutionism (which did not really begin with Darwin) acts as a solvent to civilization. Instead it promotes a sort of "animalization." There is nothing very scientific about it because real science is systematic thought and observation applied in the pursuit of the truth. It is not gathering together every observation which can vaguely be made to fit or making every observation fit with an ideology like evolutionism. That is pseudo-science.

[RightWingNilla]

Instead it promotes a sort of "animalization."

Oh yeah! Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge really knew how to party!

[ThinkPlease]

The notion that everything must be made to fit a naturalistic explanation is false. There are many (pseudo)scientists whose version of science is to make all observations fit a naturalistic explanation, no matter what systematic thought applied to observations actually show.

Actually, it is science. As has been posted here many times, assuming a supreme deity is not a very scientific proposition. Science must assume naturalistic explanations or it crosses into other disciplines. End of story.

True scientists believe that science is the pursuit of the truth, not just the pursuit of naturalistic explanation. Failing to admit this leads some to a pseudo-science like evolutionism. It is especially ironic when those who believe that science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations rather than pursuit of the truth make the argument: "Science shows us that everything has a naturalistic explanation!" And they act as if it surprising that they have found all that they are willing to look for or see. There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say. They had already defined science to show what they wanted to see a priori to actually practicing science.

Your response is quite a ramble. Other than the initial statement, you aren't making much of a point. Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth, only a form of the truth. There is no such thing as an exact science, after all, all colloquialisms aside.