Previous posts have proposed a demarcation criteria for science, and evaluated ID in considerable detail against these criteria.
Based on ID’s clear failure to satisfy the necessary criteria of testability and empirical adequacy, ID as a discipline can not be considered to fall within the realm of science. This is further confirmed by its lack of progressiveness and explanatory power.
This does not mean that ID researchers are not at times satisfying some of the criteria for doing science, but this is not sufficient to rescue ID from being classified as pseudoscience, particularly given their repeated claims of scientific status.
Where can ID go from here? It is possible that ID is a proto-science, and that in time a comprehensive theory of ID will be developed that proposes certain capabilities and motives of an intelligent designer, and possibly a mechanism for the instantiation of design in living organisms. Certainly, for ID to progress and become testable, a radical change in approach from denying any knowledge of the designer is required. Given that most ID proponents are theists, this may be a difficult step for ID to take.
There is an alternative, which is to forsake ID’s quest for scientific legitimacy, and concede that its positive arguments for design are more suitably classified as philosophy of religion, being primarily scientifically sophisticated versions of the teleological argument for design. Of course, this casts aside the mantle of scientific authority that many ID proponents see as important for swaying opinion, and is probably unacceptable for most in the ID community.
Behe, Michael J. 1996: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free.
Boudry, M., Blancke, S. and Braeckman, J. 2012: Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat. Sci & Educ, 21(8), 1151-1165.
Cleland, C. 2013: Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun. In Baker, V. (ed.) 125th Anniversary Volume of the Geological Society of America: Rethinking the Fabric of Geology, Special Paper 502 (2013), 1-9.
Creation Ministries International, 2015: What we believe. Creation Ministries International, accessed 2 December 2015. http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
Darwin, Charles. 1859: The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Harvard University Press, 1964.
Dembski, William A. 1998: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dembski, William A. 2005: Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence. Philosophia Christi 7 (2):299-343.
Discovery Institute, 2016 (a): Frequently Asked Questions. [online] Available at: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/ [Accessed 19 Jan. 2016].
Discovery Institute, 2016 (b): Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design. [online] Available at: http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2016].
Discovery Institute, 2016 (c): What Is the Science Behind Intelligent Design?. [online] Available at: http://www.discovery.org/a/9761 [Accessed 21 Jan. 2016].
Dupré, J.,1993: The disorder of things. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hansson, S. O., 1996: Defining Pseudoscience, Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176.
Kurtz, Paul, 1998: Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?. Free Inquiry (Spring 1998), 17.
Laudan, L. 1982: Commentary: Science at the Bar – Causes for Concern. Science, Technology and Human Values 7(41), 16–19.
Luskin, C. 2011: How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific “Theory”? [online] Evolution News & Views. Available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/how_do_we_know_intelligent_des051841.html [Accessed 6 Jan. 2016].
Luskin, C. 2013: Straw Men Aside, What Is the Theory of Intelligent Design, Really? [online] Evolution News & Views. Available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html [Accessed 12 Jan. 2016].
Mahner, Martin. 2013: Science and Pseudoscience. In Pigliucci, Massimo, and Boudry (eds). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.
Matzke, N. 2009: But isn’t it creationism? In Pennock, R.T. and Ruse, R (eds). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy, pp377-405
Meyer, Stephen C. 2008: A Scientific History – and Philosophical Defense – of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft, vol. 7.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2014: Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne.
Orr, H.A. 1996: Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again). Boston Review, December 1996/January 1997, 28–31.
Pigliucci, Massimo, 2013: The Demarcation Problem. In Pigliucci, Massimo, and Boudry (eds). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.