ID is not science, because the scientific community has ruled out intelligent causes when there is no independent evidence of a designer.
I would rephrase this to make sure no one was under the impression that the ruling out an intelligent cause was the output of some experimental investigation. I would state it as follows:
Without independent evidence of the designers, science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something was designed.
So what’s the deal with this “independent evidence of the designers?” I bring this up because many in the ID movement have appealed to archaeology and forensics as examples of science incorporating intelligent causes. But in those cases, scientists rely extensively on their independent knowledge of the designers – humans. I have discussed this earlier.
The need for this independent evidence of the designers is important for two reasons.
First, it is a way of stating that we can objectively anchor the designer as part of natural history. Science attempts to explain reality by using causes that are known to exist as part of our objective reality. We know that various natural laws exist. And we know that stochastic processes exist. Scientists all agree these exist. But we don’t know that a putative designer exists as . Thus, without this independent evidence that a designer existed at the time of the proposed design, science has no reason to invoke a cause. In fact, from the scientific perspective, invoking an intelligent cause comes across either as question begging or an ad hoc move.
Second, if we had independent evidence of the designers, we could use this information to objectively probe hypotheses of design. For example, if our independent evidence included a set of knowledge where the designer designed object X, we could use this information to explore the hypothesis that the same designer designed object Y. We would be able to objectively establish various hallmarks associated with X to see if they likewise apply to Y.
The key in both cases is that the analysis is objective. We use a cause, that was known to exist at the proposed time of design, and then investigate to determine if known attributes/effects of this cause were in play with the phenomenon in question. If you remove this type of information, you cut away the objective anchor that is necessary part of science.