Since there's no proof in science, there's also no definitive refutation, science does however, try to suggest the best bet with the hand dealt, and that ain't a theory that things that exist are unachievable barring a miracle. That has been a losing bet in science every single time it's been tried.
but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
Miller is one of the authors of the commmonest undergrad intro to biology texts. It will come as big news to many that he is about to be drummed out of the club.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
And maybe there's a reason for that.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
Well, in what scientific institute does this reasoning prevail? Most of the scientists I know entertain some mild form of creationism, ID, or at least panspermia, and I don't see them ducking for cover. It's just that, unlike the Discovery Institute, they don't mistake their flights of fancy for seriously contending scientific theories that have done enough homework to warrant a seat at the scientific table.
Interesting-- what do you think the motivation of those scientists is? Do you most of them have similar reasons for buying into those alternatives?
I'm surprised that you're surpised that Miller would take heat buying into fine-tuning, but mayve things are just that much more open than I realize.