If there are two possibilites for a given effect then science only allows for one? Really?
Do you know what science
is? Not trying to make fun, I'm genuinely curious what you think science actually is and how it works. Especially if you genuinely believe that ID is legitimate science.
Did you read the book or is your unsolicited assessment from a position of ignorance?
It's just a point of fact. Although calling it a pop-sci book might be being too generous, since it's apparently published under HarperCollins' HarperOne imprint, which specializes in books to do with religion and spirituality. So maybe it's more a pop-religion book.
Regardless, getting a book published by HarperCollins does not entitle one to classroom time in a public school. That was my original point.
As for the book itself, no I have not read it. The last I have ever read of Meyer's published works would have been some of his papers going back to the 2000's. Perusing his more recent publication list, looks like he's getting stuff printed in religious journals or just put out by the Discovery Institute itself.
Not seeing the argument for ID being a legitimate science worthy of even a classroom mention.
Now you move the goalposts to so-called legit journals when that process is loaded with problems, fraud and stealing.
The goalposts never shifted. When I talk about 'publishing' science, I'm talking about real academic journals, not selling a book at Barnes & Noble. Scientists do research into various fields, publish academic work in peer-reviewed journals, other scientists look at their work and scrutinize it or do their own research, research programs get started at universities, maybe makes its way into industry applications, gets taught the grad level, starts trickling down to undergrad, then after being vetted and generally agreed upon as valid science making its way through public school boards,
eventually it makes its way down to the public school. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.
ID hasn't done this yet. They're still stuck trying to come up with valid research as a starting point and getting other scientists to accept it.
Part of the problem is admittedly the way theism has gotten all tangled up with ID. It doesn't help that the major proponents are theists who have adopted belief that the designer they seek is in fact a supernatural being (which by the limitations of science cannot be addressed). It also doesn't help that creationists latched onto ID and started promoting alongside their own creationist beliefs, which further entangled ID in with theism and religious fundamentalism.
It also doesn't help that when you start scratching past the surface of what ID proponents are proposing, quite bluntly, it's pretty poor from a scientific POV and not all that applicable to biological organisms. I know that ID proponents would rather not believe that the stuff they are slinging is, well, kinda crap, so instead you get cries of conspiracy to silence them. It's not a conspiracy. It's that ID is bad science (or not science at all). The burden is on the backs of the ID proponents to convince other scientists otherwise by coming up with testable hypotheses, doing legit research, publishing their findings and withstanding scrutiny. Thus far they haven't done that.
ID itself could be legitimate on its own. After all, human beings have begun tinkering with biological engineering and effectively violating natural evolutionary processes. So the concept of an artificially 'designed' biological organism is a real thing. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen IDists trying to focus on that aspect of it; or maybe they have and I'm just not aware of it.
