Claim: Intelligent design theory is a science stopper

Cornelius Hunter takes that on:

In a debate with Michael Ruse at Oregon State University, a student in the audience asked me how one does science according to intelligent design. It is a common question. If the designer can autonomously create designs, how can one make predictions? If the natural world operates not according to a set of natural laws, but instead according to an autonomous entity, then how can science proceed? Indeed, more commonly evolutionists do not ask such questions, but rather boldly assert that under any such formulation, science becomes utterly impossible. Many such examples could be given but an op-ed article in the New York Times from evolutionist and then president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, will suffice:

In evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. But the entire success of the scientific enterprise has depended on an insistence that these gaps be filled by natural explanations, logically derived from confirmable evidence. Because “intelligent design” theories are based on supernatural explanations, they can have nothing to do with science.

Science Depends on It

In other words, there is an intellectual necessity of strictly naturalistic explanation — our science depends on it. And so, it would seem that intelligent design commits the intellectual sin of being a science stopper. But as we shall see, this intellectual necessity argument reveals something very different…

Cornelius Hunter, “Is Intelligent Design a Science Stopper?” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 11, 2022)

Before we even get to Dr. Hunter’s observations and arguments, notice how much nonsense the demand for naturalism contributes to popular science media: Any day now, we are going to

hit on the origin of lifefind the consciousness spot in the brain/prove there’s no consciousnessprove there’s no free willestablish that apes do SO think just like people

The fact that this promissory materialism, for which Darwinism is the origin story, is all hype and no hope never means anything. A fresh batch of media will bring up the same worn themes. And it’s as close to science as large numbers of educated mediocrities ever want to get.

You may also wish to read: Darwinian evolution and apparently suboptimal design: Cornelius Hunter points out that the most powerful arguments for schoolbook Darwinism are theological in character: What God wouldn’t do, etc. And they also apply only to alternative viewpoints, not to core Darwinism itself.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana