Michael Behe explains what the Intelligent Design movement is (and is not) in this morning’s NY Times. He starts by addressing the perhaps the biggest misconception in the controversy, one that is promoted explicitly by Gerald Zelizer in this morning’s USA Today:
Evolution makes specific propositions that are testable, provable and
disprovable through a measurable and observable process that takes
place in nature. That categorizes it as science. Intelligent design, on
the other hand, cannot be proved or disproved by natural evidence
because its design is supernatural. That categorizes it as religion.
Absolutely wrong. The claim of ID is that it is much better science than evolution – and it is. This is not about science versus religion – its about science versus science, and as I have said before, religion versus religion.