Intelligent Design is the idea that our universe was created/designed by some sort of unspecified intelligence. In recent years, many fundamentalist Christian religious groups have latched onto intelligent design and are pushing to have it taught in science classrooms across the United States. They argue that since the intelligent designer isn't specified, the separation of church and state isn't violated. Although by "intelligent designer" they obviously mean God, it is certainly possible that the designer could be something physical like a powerful alien race. We could even be living in a computer simulated Matrix like universe. In order to be considered scientific, intelligent design needs to do one big thing. It needs to make testable predictions. All scientific theories not only explain previously observed phenomena, but they make unique testable predictions about what will be observed. Einstein's general relativity not only explained irregularities in Mercury's orbit, it also predicted the bending of starlight by the Sun. In this respect, scientific theories are also falsifiable. There are observations that will disprove the theory. For example, evolution predicts things like, "You will never find an octopus with bird feathers, or see a mammal species with an insect exoskeleton." If you can't get a body part through manipulations of previously existing body structures, then natural selection isn't true. Something like the presence of a single centaur or mermaid in the fossil record would disprove evolution.
I would think that religious groups would be hesitant to point to God as the intelligent designer. Including God in science would mean that there would exist some sort of test you could perform to see whether God exists. I can see it now...the scientist comes out of his lab, holds a press converence, lifts up his beaker, and says, "Sorry everyone, the liquid turned blue...theres no God". If God is to become a subject of scientific enquiry, then He must be something that I can weigh, measure, or cram a thermometer into. What I mean is that God must be quantifiable and definable in some way. There is another problem in my mind with making God an object of empirical study. With empirical knowledge, there is no way of being absolutely sure when you have arrived at the truth about something. I know, for example, that when I let go of a ball it falls. Now, I've performed the dropping ball experiment many times in my life, and I feel extremely confident in saying that whenever I drop a ball it will always fall down, but there is no way to be 100% certain about that through empirical observation. It certainly isn't true in the same sense that 1+1=2 is true. It is possible that I might let go of the ball once and it will fall up. Also, in science new theories often come along and replace the old ones. You would have to be willing to change your view of God to fit new experimental observations. I don't know about you, but I've always thought that truths about God should be absolute, eternal, and unchanging. I guess it is possible that our universe was created by an intelligent physical being of some sort, but I fail to see the scientific value in making such a hypothesis. Especially without obvious evidence to back it up. When it makes a unique testable prediction, then I'll consider intelligent design.
Although intelligent design doesn't belong in the science classroom, I think it would be the perfect topic for a high school class in philosophy. Philosophy is an excellent subject that encompasses topics relevant to science, religion, morality, politics, and being. A high school philosophy class would be an excellent way to encourage critical thinking in young people. Too many people in the United States focus on memorizing enough to pass tests. Its important to be able to take two facts and put them together.
(I thought I'd mention that I may be living in New Zealand for a few years while I study, but I'm an American and proud of it)
