A commenter made some interesting comments on a previous post, which I have moved up to the main part of the blog, so that I can answer them here.

The commenter writes:

Science is a methodology for creating and proving theories through observation and experimentation.

Certainly.

If you cannot perform experiments and observations on supernatural beings, than you can neither prove nor disprove the ID theory.

If ID makes the claim "this set of events can only be explained by appeal to the direct intervention of a supernatural agency", and science can show a natural process that does explain the events, then science has proved ID false. This is exactly what science is in the middle of doing. Claims involving the supernatural can be falsified, and in that way can be investigated in an entirely normal scientific way.

You don’t set up theories to prove them wrong. You create theories based on observation and experimentation.

It’s routine in science to attempt to disprove theories. Certainly, all the scientists I’ve worked with would prefer to have their theories proved; but they are quite happy to see theories disproved (preferably other peoples!).

Furthermore, the promotion of pseudoscience in school and the media is incredibly frustrating to the scientific community, because it hinders the advancement of science.

It is hindering science in some ways. But it does give publicity that otherwise science would never get, and that helps. It also helps the scientific community itself decide on what science is.

Also since the days of Darwin, an incredible amount of work has been done on evolution. It’s sad to see people still believe that most of what we know about evolution still comes from Darwin’s observations.

I’m not an expert in what other people know. I read Darwin’s more important works some time ago, and have more knowledge of modern genetics, and the foundational mathematics for all kinds of evolution.