Author and blogger Chet Raymo sensibly weighs in on biologist Robin Allshire writing a retraction for an earlier scientific paper, admitting no one, not even his own laboratory, has been able to duplicate the results of the original experiment. Raymo concludes:
When we see the first peer-reviewed experimental data supporting intelligent design or astrology that is reproducible in other laboratories by skeptics and believers alike, then these hypotheses can make a legitimate claim to being sciences.
When we see the first published retraction, we will know that intelligent design or astrology has reached maturity as a science.
It’s a good definition, but I’m not holding my breath for maturity coming along any time soon. ID is not science. As such, I don’t necessarily have a problem with its inclusion in a curriculum, just not in a science curriculum.