For an insight on how “the other side” views the Dover decision, take a look at this post on Scott’s As If blog. Scott is a Christian who supports ID. This is what he has to say about the recent Dover court decision:
Does it bother anyone else that a judge has decreed ID as non-scientific?
Jones clearly adheres to a religion-science dichotomy - a world where faith has no place in "scientific" pursuits. As I've been reminded recently, the philosophy underlying this perspective is naturalism. My friend Leo sums it up well when he describes naturalism as a philosophy that says nature can explain itself. In the view of the naturalist, there is no use or need for a creator. Hence, any endeavor is credibly scientific so long as it results in a natural explanation. By definition, any finding outside of the natural, which by definition is the supernatural, doesn't qualify.
(My bold. You’ll see I have been debating this and other points in the comments.)
I think I can see where he’s coming from: he’s complaining that it’s only because science is defined as looking for naturalistic causes that supernatural causes are excluded. As a believer in the supernatural he doesn’t see why the supernatural should be excluded just by definition.
So I got to thinking, why does science exclude the supernatural? Surely it’s just because the supernatural can’t be tested? What science requires is that you can test your theory, but test in it such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test. (Because how else do you know if something is true unless you test it in a way that it would fail if it were false?) So surely science doesn’t exclude the supernatural per se, it just excludes things it can’t test?
If that is true, perhaps we should stress the need for falsifiability and testing, rather than the exclusion of supernatural explanations. It may be the same thing, but perhaps it would be more understandable. Or am I wrong?