Actually, it is the opposite. Scientists that reject the possibility of a higher intelligence as the designer of the Universe, do not follow the scientific method. If one removes a possibility from the probability of out comes, they create holes in their conclusion.
"...Whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth "
The question of origins is largely a matter of history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning Darwin’s advice. http://www.trueorigins.org/
Have you always been anti-science and anti-education? The scientists are following the scientific method. It is you that doesn't even know what the scientific method involves. Otherwise, you would not be making statements that are completely backwards. Postulating the concept of a 'designer' is one thing, but it has no testable premises. Science will have to be warped beyond recognition in order for ID to be taught as science. ID is capitualtion on learning about our universe. It basically says it's too complicated to understand. My head hurts from thinking about it so someone smarter must have done it all. If that is the case, scientists can hang up their lab coats. The explanation "God did it" will be the final answer. No need for research anymore. Trying to get ID into a classroom is nothing more than intellectual affermative action.
You certainly don't know many scientists it seems.
The scientific method is not being used these days in many areas of "science".....scientific method requires that you examine all the data/evidence. These bigoted scientists won't even look at data/evidence outside their preconceived notion of what the answer should be.
WHAT A JOKE....intelligent design made sense to most scientists up until Darwin vomited his black box THEORY on humanity. We are way beyond the black box because we are beginning to finally understand some of these highly complex systems he assumed were simple.
Physical systems and their components demonstrate methodical behaviors and patterns. This requires programming not random chance. There is so much intelligence and information embedded in every single atom, only a fool, once they have actually looked at it with an open mind, could dismiss design over random chance and absolutely improbable statistics of evolution.
That's right. But, at the same time it is design that makes science possible.
It is obvious to me that the majority of the people on this thread who oppose ID have not bothered to read any of the literature that is currently available. They buy into what the MSM says, and let that suffice. They would not do that on any other topic than this...amazing.