[Dimensio]

Looking at life on Earth, the bottom line is this: there's no reason for us to rule out the possibility that intelligent designers played at least some role (not necessarily an exclusive, or even a predominant role) on the way life has turned out here. The best reason for not tossing out that possibility is that we humans have been doing intelligent design for millenia.

Thing is, an explanation in science holdsup if it is supported by the evidence, not if it's just something that you can't prove to be false. Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science.

[r9etb]

Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science.

Then "it all happened via random mutation" is likewise a fundamentally worthless statement for two reasons:

a) We know from the fact that humans practice ID, that it is a potentially viable explanation for any given characteristic, especially those we have not directly observed to occur;

and b) if Design is not falsifiable as an explanation, then neither is the alternate claim that random mutation accounts for any and all characteristics that we can observe.

[NJ_gent]

"Thing is, an explanation in science holdsup if it is supported by the evidence, not if it's just something that you can't prove to be false. Non-falsifiable statements are fundamentally worthless in science."

He's absolutely right that the possibility exists. Any good scientists must acknowledge the possibility that something beyond anything we can see or understand is driving the forces of the universe (including evolution). That doesn't mean that such concepts be given a high probability assessment by individuals, but the possibility, however remote, does indeed exist. You are quite right though that ideas which cannot be tested (such as the metaphysical) are not within the boundaries of things valued by science. It's not that they're impossible - just that if they're true, we have a problem. :-)