Intelligent Design is Not Science, At Least Not Yet

In the debate between intelligent design (ID) and evolution there is often an important element that is left out: The scientific method. And while there can be an endless debate on definitions of the word "science," it's important to remember how science is used to arrive at certain conclusions before we use it to conclude that some vague concept of intelligence created the universe.
It's logical to conclude that for something to be "scientific," someone used the scientific method to come to that conclusion. And what is the scientific method? If we remember from elementary school, roughly it is observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and conclusion. Now, when one says that ID is scientific, he or she is forgetting an important detail, and that's the experimental step of the scientific method. If someone observes that the physical world is extraordinarily complex, makes the hypothesis that there must have been an intelligence that designed everything, predicts that this is the case, and concludes that an intelligence or god or whatever designed it all, an important step was missed, experimentation! So far, there have been no experiments set up that give conclusive evidence that an intelligent being or force designed things.

Seems there's an issue about a feral feline at The High Desert Museum and the effect on the other species sharing its environment. Sound familiar?
 
Why do we always whine about the glowing ember while ignoring the raging forest fire we created behind us? Which species has destroyed and endangered more fellow creatures than any other, including feral felines? Who is wiping out wolves with helicopters and destroying the habitat, not to mention the polar bear species, of our northern regions? Who has destroyed countless species of plants and potential herbal remedies by clear-cutting rainforests? Who created DDT? Which species wiped out the cod fisheries off the east coast of our country?
Why don't we all just open our eyes, our minds, and put our mouths and pens to more effective, long-term gains than the future of chipmunks?Yep, I know this would require intelligence and maturity, which may be asking too much of the human species, but why not give the kitty some slack and start cleaning up our own (bigger) mess?
One who tries to see the tree from the forest.

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, "Where do we come from?" The answer carries profound implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion and the meaning of life (if any): "Are we here for a purpose?"
There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity - natural phenomena - are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the "naturalistic hypothesis;") or 2) a combination of law, chance and design - the activity of a mind or some sort of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the "design hypothesis.") The latter produces purpose, the former does not.
The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and life) and by Darwinian evolution (with the respect to the origin of the diversity of life.) The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as "fine tuned." Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the science for the philosophy, the evidence from the implications and reality from imagination.