“God does not publish science textbooks.”
Science is a closed system, in which by using the rules of science, an experiment can be conducted to achieve the same results by anyone else, anywhere or any time else, and achieve the same results, as long as they follow the established rules. It very carefully eliminates factors that might influence the experiment, that are outside of the rules of the experiment.
As such, it is little different than playing chess. If you follow the rules, then you have played a game of chess, nothing more. If you do not follow the rules, while you have done something, it is not played a game of chess. Even if you used a chess board and chess pieces, it is still not chess.
By being reproducible, science is rewarded credibility to its experiments. This credibility is incorrectly interpolated and extrapolated to things outside of science. While they might appear to still follow the rules, they are not scientific, per se.
There is no place for God within a scientific experiment, any more than saying that “God permits me to use my pawns like Rooks”, because neither God, nor God’s influence is reproducible by other people, in other times and in other places, on demand. Therefore God cannot be included as a variable or constant in a scientific experiment.
This is not to say that God does not act as a variable or a constant in scientific experiments, just that God is not in the rules of science.
Therefore, Intelligent Design accomplishes nothing. It does not follow the rules of science, and should not be taught to students in a science class, *not* because it is not true, but because it does not, and cannot, follow the rules of science.
If students and their parents therefore abhor science, in principle they should be allowed to avoid it in their child’s school instruction. And if they steadfastly hold this belief, then the study of science is unimportant to them as such.
But there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom. If it is taught separately in an Intelligent Design class, that likewise is acceptable. But only on the strict basis that it is not scientific, because it does not obey the rules of science.
You are talking about operational science, not historical science. Historical science is based on inference, whether it be creation or evolution.
“But there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom.”
Then there is no place for MY money in a science classroom.
“...there is no place for Intelligent Design studies in a science classroom...”
I would agree, except to the extent that evolution IS intelligent design!
I think this is a revealing assertion right out of the gate and couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
Scientists themselves haven't agreed on what "is or isn't science", let alone the "rules of science" (whatever that is), from the outset of whatever it was that science can call it's beginnings to this present day. And there's simply no credible evidence that things will change tomorrow on this front.
They (and no one else btw,) can agree on what is or isn't scientific, or what constitutes "science" let alone pseudo-science, alchemy, etc. etc. etc.
Look at manmade global warming for starters...people, including scientists, call that a cult, pseudo-science, etc. on this very board daily!
Science is about as open a system as there can possibly be!
Scientists have studied and performed scientific experiments on prayer for instance, and have probably received YOUR tax money to do it, and nothing could possibly be more subjective!
Scientists come up with wild ideas about multiverses, string theories and again, get govt money to come up with them!
When someone tells you science is closed, what they really mean is closed to everyone but godless secularist NEA liberals who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers.
Everyone else has been 'Expelled'.
There's no room for intelligence and/or design in science simply because they say so.
NOT based on evidence, or anything else but merely because they're under the misassumption someone gave them and them alone the keys to science!
No one did, of course.
Your comment is unscientific. Here's why.
You've made two huge assumptions, both of which are offered to support your pre-determined result. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is not how one would describe a "scientific" process.
First, you are committing the cardinal scientific error of a priori excluding a valid hypothesis from the realm of scientific study.
Second, you assume that "intelligent design" = God. You've made it into a religious issue, rather than a scientific one. The truth is that an "intelligent design" hypothesis need not be a proxy for "God did it".
Both of your errors can be spotted just by considering the field of genetic engineering. It is quite obviously a field in which biological development must be considered in the context of the intelligent designers who are doing the engineering.
If science is about explaining phenomena, how would a scientist correctly explain a genetically engineered organism (say, insulin-producing bacteria) without reference to an intelligent designer? The answer is: accurate "science" cannot exclude a "design" hypothesis in this case. In fact, the design hypothesis would be appropriate and valid in this case.
Likewise, it's easy to see that it is not necessary to hypothesize "God" in order to hypothesize "design."