ID in America : controversy Part I

Sandeep had in this post commented on the controversies controversy surrounding the debate on ID versus evolution. I have followed this controversies controversy to some extent, and was initially amused by it.

I am a theist , however I find this attempt at installing ID (Intelligent Design) which is at best a pseudo science and at worst creationism, quite hilarious.
The modus operandi is something like that Evolution doesn't explain such and such data fully, hence evolution is just a theory (lay man term for hypothesis), hence some outside agency must have tinkered with genes here and there at this or that instant of time and therefore ladies and gentlemen, ID is a scientific theory on equal footing with evolution and must be taught as an alternative.

This is wrong and misplaced (and intentionally) on many levels. I am not a scientist , but this is how I think things work in science. First comes observation, it can be throughout a direct scientific experiment using whatever instruments necessary or as a corollary of some other theory, next comes hypothesis, now there is nothing airtight about what form hypothesis should take though a prevailing wisdom is that it should be consistent in logic and assumption with established theories.Then then that hypothesis is used as best fit for the observation data, in general it may take some modification, which is acceptable as long as it retains consistency.

In this way a theory is established, however in strict scientific terms there is no way a theory is proved in absolute, as more and more data comes a good theory will satisfy it, however it is possible that the data can not be explained, at which point theory may be rejected or extended.

A case in point is that of Theory of gravitation, first proposed by Newton in 17th century it was able to predict the motion of planetary bodies to a reasonable extent , except for that of mercury's somewhat erratic orbit. Many hypotheses were put forth to explain the apparent discrepancy (including modification in value of G) with little success , it was not explained until Einstein postulated general theory of relativity, in effect making Newtonian theory of gravity a specific case of relativity.

However general theory of relativity had to stand rigorous tests of it's own and in fact it still does to this date. However if Pro - ID were to be taken as the standard, the argument could have gone that since Newton's theory doesn't explain discrepancy must be invisible hand of God

Coming to evaluation it is a theory which took a long time to develop and at present is the best fit for all the evidence present, what is more while evaluation theory has a consistent idea of mechanism (selection, mutation and evolution), the specifics of this are hotly debated even among the pro-evolutionists. When I said best fit , I meant exactly that , there remains much dispute about various data , but it is about specific mechanism and not per se about theory itself.
ID does pretend to explain the data, but it does by pointing out failures of evolution.
Shunning science for faith is an idea which has the potential to bring back the dark ages.