(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.
It does no such thing. The Court’s opinion ignores, both here and elsewhere, the distinction between an implication of a theory and the theory itself. As I testified, when it was first proposed the Big Bang theory struck many scientists as pointing to a supernatural cause. Yet it clearly is a scientific theory, because it is based entirely on physical data and logical inferences. The same is true of intelligent design.
OK then, let’s say that ID doesn’t invoke supernatural causation. What/who is the Intelligent Causal Agent in this case? If it isn’t supernatural, then it is natural, and I misjudged the ID; they are a raelian-like movement: ET’s (quite natural people) came and builded the plans and produced, say, the bacterial flagellum.
If designists put it this way (I doubt), they should go on and explain the evolution of ET’s; if they accept a darwinian path, darwinians will expect nothing more then be presented to evidence of ET’s existence and Behe should join SETI.
The comparison with the Bing Bang theory is nasty.
The Big Bang theory is backward extrapolation of observed data, the expansion of the universe.
Darwinism is backward extrapolation of observed data, the evolution of species.
Both explain data.
What data ID explains?