I generally feel that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, and here I wanted to present one point which convinces me of this, and hopefully hear some responses from I.D. proponents.
My stance is that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather is a religious viewpoint (or, to give more credit, a philosophy). My evidence is the fact that Intelligent Design doesn't seem to apply to any single area of study... it's not about physics, or geology. It's not even about biology or cosmology. Instead, it's just about... well... everything.
Real science isn't like that at all. Real science is focused in on a particular idea, aspect, or area of study. Even wide-reaching theories in science are fairly narrow in their application (Germ Theory deals only with micro-organisms. The Theory of Evolution deals with the diversity of life. The Theory of Relativity deals with large-scale physics, etc.)
Originally, Intelligent Design was presented as an opposing viewpoint to the Theory of Evolution, suggesting that it was a hypothesis within Biology. Then, traditional philosophical arguments for God (like the Kalaam Cosmological Argument or the Anthropic Principle) were applied to astronomy and also given the label of "Intelligent Design" (although it was much harder to pass these off as 'alternatives' to real cosmological theories like the Big Bang Theory). But eventually, Intelligent Design arguments extended to address the formation of the first life itself, the generation of chemical and physical laws, even aspects of mathematics!
So what is it, I.D. proponents? What is Intelligent Design about? Is it an area of Biology? Or of chemistry? Or of physics?
™ Version 4.2