Yep. Anything intelligible is open to scientific inquiry, i.e. within the confines of scientific endeavor. Unless, of course, one is closed-minded and thus either opposed to free inquiry or dedicated to a particular philosophy. Last time I checked it was evolutionists who prefer to use the law to choke out any mention of intelligent design in association with organized matter that performs specific functions. I guess they'd like to give former creationist tactics a whirl. Have at it, fellas!
There are three methods of knowledge known to man. You seem void of knowledge of any of the three but they are named Philosophy, Science, and Mathematics.
The method of philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown. In thousands of years it has provided little or no new knowledge. It is void of any fact and all proofs have remained argument.
The method of science is observation of a material fact, evidence, and empirical evidence of the fact and a explanation of the fact with evidence that constitutes theory. Aristotle is known as the father of science. The method of science was invented to exclude faith and belief because faith and belief obstructs and fights new facts or knowledge and views science as a threat. Aristotle's science was retrieved from the Arabs in the early middle ages and accepted by the western world as Aristotelian thought and the method of science. It has no method of observing anything other than a material fact. Faith and belief cannot be observed as a material fact or knowledge and remain argument. Proof is not a term of science. Science provides evidence.
The method of mathematics provides proof of absolutes and determines laws by designation of symbols and numbers. Descartes is thought the father of mathematics and turned to mathematics when his philosophy failed to provide proof of doubt and remained argument that was refused by the church.
The three methods are separate and not interchangeable. Philosophy can only argue faith and belief and is void of facts. Science can only observe material facts and provide the evidence for the fact, not proof. Mathematics only determines absolutes and laws. It does not determine faith and belief not does it observe new facts.
Last there is the failed method of knowledge, Opinion. Opinion is despised by Science, Philosophy and Mathematics. It is incapable of logical argument, is void of facts and knowledge and determines no absolutes or laws. Opinion seeks agenda by accusation, name calling, misrepresentation of facts, lack of knowledge and in the end violence when opinion is refuted. One of opinion is usually known as a opinionest or opinion est. Opinion is thought to be the most vile of all unethical acts.
Now comes a old argument of theological philosophy,(creation dressed up as ID), that has been relegated to opinion for centuries. It begs to be accepted as science. It's premise is that you can't disprove creation or ID and uses a term of philosophy. Well who cares except the opinionest who can't prove or disprove anything by opinion and philosophy. Science simply asks is there any new evidence of a observed fact or knowledge that we can explain by the scientific method. The reply is we have faith and belief, argument and opinion. Science answers you have had thousands of years to provide new facts or knowledge to be explain by science and have failed. You remain argument and the method of philosophy and not a observed fact by science.
Once rejected Creation and ID says we will accomplish our agenda with opinion. We will use the power of philosophical law to impose our faith and belief in science and require it taught as theory. We will distort the meanings and terms science. We will deny any facts of science with opinion. We will refuse and keep from others any knowledge of the scientific method. We will discredit science by any agenda of opinion possible.
However one should caution opinionest to be careful of what they wish. If science ever observes ID or Creation as a fact, that fact will be explained by science whether the the fact is a Deity, God or a unknown. It will not be explained by philosophy. All of faith and belief may cease to exist. Only one or none of religion will be correct. Most of faith and belief along with opinion will become ridicule. The total of their knowledge may be tugging a goat or riding a donkey if lucky.
A example of opinion can be observed in the first paragraph and is furnish by another poster. We would like to thank him because opinion can only be accomplish by meaningless, random, and useless thoughts. Not many are so capable of such opinion.
"Last time I checked it was evolutionists who prefer to use the law to choke out any mention of intelligent design in association with organized matter that performs specific functions."
Really? I've never met a scientist who wouldn't discuss new evidence although there may be some. The problem they universally have, though, is with teaching things not supported by evidence and in particular being told to teach things not supported by evidence.
Science is not the be-all and end-all to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
I feel pity for those who think science has all the answers.