"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"
A little ad hoc as well as nebulous because of the use of the word "specific," but it doesn't rule out intelligent design being a valid approach to explaining the observed data.
Both physics (and science as a whole) and history operate in very narrow fields and their practicioners too often make the mistake of assuming that their method of approaching their subjects applies to all other realms of knowledge. Some, such as poor Carl Sagan, even believe that there is nothing else to be known outside the realm open to their own methodology: "The Cosmos, all there is, was, or ever shall be." This is certainly not a proposition that has ever been demonstrated by science.
The myth: The scientist as noble, clear-eyed, dispassionate revealer of truth. The truth is that the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises. And it
never prevents folks like the chemical apocalyptics of the 1970s such as Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich and global warming activists (including Paul Ehrlich) from using "science" as a "this has been proven safe to eat" sticker on their own political agendas.
If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what actually is out there from what one hopes or believes is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.
The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that, since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.
The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who use intelligent design as a means of explaining observational data or who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. In the case of the former they make the unwarranted statement that it cannot be accepted because "it's not science but religion" and in the case of the latter they claim that their witness cannot be trusted because
1. something like that cannot happen,
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane, mistaken, or a liar.
And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific. The answer to the above is, of course,
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology or physics teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are, nonetheless, real.
The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?
Aren’t all definitions arbitrary? If science is defined as something, then yes, that is arbitrary. But if everyone uses the same definition, then no matter how arbitrary it is, the term is used in uniformity. So if we decided to call the act of measuring and quantifying empirical data ‘science,’ then any argument over what is ‘science’ must be based on whether it measures and quantifies empirical data.
To say that because the definition of the word ‘science’ doesn’t encompass other ideas, and to use that as a reason to disregard the term all together is disingenuous.
Science is not about measuring thoughts or ideas, because they can not be experimented on. Science is about the physical realm. Science can be used by philosophers and religions, as well as scientists can use ideas as the basis for a hypothesis. But until it is tested (more accurately, until a scientist tries to disprove it) the hypothesis is not science.