From critics of intelligent design, the top charge against ID is that it “isn’t science” and thus can’t even be evaluated as a scientific alternative to Darwinism. Since it’s “not science,” we get a free pass and are allowed to ignore its arguments. Whew!
Dr. Casey Luskin addressed this objection in a presentation at the 2025 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. As he is both a geologist and an attorney, Luskin offers to conduct the argument as an attorney might: “This objection fails for so many reasons, both theoretical and practical, that you can do what we lawyers call arguing in the alternative.” This way of reasoning leads to four main conclusions:
- ID uses the scientific method of the historical sciences to make positive, predictive, empirically testable claims which are supported by the evidence.
- ID has an active research program that has published hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
- ID can be applied to guide research that discovers how the natural world operates in the present day.
- No matter how you slice it, ID is a bona fide scientific theory that is making advancements to lead biology into the 21st century.
What exactly is the dividing line that separates science from non-science? The answer isn’t as obvious as many people assume. Regardless, it’s clear that ID falls on the “science” not the “non-science” side. Watch: