Science isn't design, is it?

Today's New York Times (free subscription req'd) op-ed Design for Living by Michael Behe tries to make the case that the intelligent design narrative about life is not the same as the creationist story about life, and that it also differs from the theory of evolution. In short the argument is if it looks designed, then it is designed. Period. I'm not really sure what to make of this. Personally I'm agnostic about the whole designer of the universe story.

But this essay started me thinking about the practices of design and the practices of science. I don't think the two enterprises are the same, although they are related. I think it's important to elucidate some of the differences.

Science is empirical. It is based on verifiable observations, reproducible experiments, and confirmable calculations. It is about description and prediction, exploration and discovery.

Design, in contrast, is creative. It is about building things. Design is also empirical. It's pretty hard to tell if a new chair shape or fabric is comfortable without sitting in it or touching it. Furthermore, what science discovers is often used in the design of new material goods, and new ways of working and playing.

Engineering is the practical application of scientific information and knowledge in the construction of homes, the preparation of food, the education of children, and the treatment of disease. Engineering is a blend of design (creating something new) and observation and experimentation (seeing if and how well it works).

It would be great if I could tie this all together in some neat way, but I can't.