This is another article I found through William Dembski’s blog. It’s about the lack of support for Intelligent Design at Harvard Divinity School. It quotes, for example, Diane L. Moore, director of the program in religion and secondary education at HDS, as saying:
“The proponents of intelligent design want to promote it as a theory, but it doesn’t follow the basic claims of science.” “It’s not something you can prove.”
But this does’t seem reasonable to me. No idea has to be provable in order to be a valid scientific view. It simply has to make testable predictions that can allow the theory to be either corroborated or disproved. Requiring that ID be provable is setting a higher standard for it than any other scientific hypothesis is subjected to.
I’ve written to Sarah Milov, the author of the article, asking for clarification of what Moore meant, but so far have had no response.