A common thread among many participants in the debate about Intelligent Design is the high value that is associated with the label "Science." Many ID proponents insist ID is Science, while the critics of ID insist that it is not Science. Why is the label so important? Could it be that our culture has shaped us to equate Science with objective truth, while non-science is relegated to the realm of subjective mumbo-jumbo? I suspect this notion, or something similar, is at work. But in that case, is it really true that non-science is subjective mumbo-jumbo?
Consider the myriad of "pro-science" blogs out there. Everyday, scores of people offer their opinions and arguments about a variety of topics related to science. And while the bloggers talk about science, defend science, provide some free education, build on science, praise science, etc., their blogs are not Science. Their blogs are non-science. Does that mean they blog nothing more than subjective mumbo-jumbo everyday? That their "pro-science" blogs are no different from some teen-ager blogging about a party they went to the night before? I don't think so. Then again, I don't think non-science = subjective mumbo-jumbo, as there is a lot of room between science and subjective mumbo-jumbo.