I totally agree, but for the very same reasons regarding the historical character of origins science I disagree that "science will have to change to incorporate the supernatural for ID to fit." It is simply circular to exclude the postulation of nonmechanistic (mental or intelligent) agency in scientific origins theories based soley on an exclusively naturalistic definition of science. All historical theories depend on making inferences based on indirect observations in an attempt to reconstruct past conditions or causes from present facts. Excluding intelligent agency in an objective historical investigation a priori based merely on a naturalistist philosophy makes about as much sense as saying that a homocide detective is not being scientific because he attributes the cause of the dead body to some intelligent agency rather than the result of some accidental mechanism. One hypothesis or the other may turn out to be true, but one cannot say that either hypothesis and/or the investigation is not a scientific one, or using a scientific methodology. In fact, if the detective ruled out any possiblity of agency a priori he would never find the murderer, if indeed the death was the result of murder.
Cordially,
You are wrong on that point. Science relies exclusively on naturalistic phenomenon. To go outside those bounds, means you are leaving science behind. It is definitely not circular. ID is the circular arguement where the question of design gets pushed back because ID fails to account for the origin of the necessary complexity of the designer. Who designed the designer of the designer?All historical theories depend on making inferences based on indirect observations in an attempt to reconstruct past conditions or causes from present facts.
If you take a look at modern science, there is very little that is directly observed. Even in the hard sciences, data are indirectly inferred from instrument measurements. Theories based on historical sciences are tested by further observation which is equally valid, scientifically, to replicate instrument measurements on a single sample.
The fundamental probel with ID is that it does not offer a test that can falsify it. There is a flaw in your example of a homicide investigation. Tests are done to determine cause of death and the mechanism of death. A murderer leaves physical evidence. In ID, there is no evidence of intelligent intervention. It is possible to philosophically say that ID 'shadows' evolution, but there is no evidence of direct physical interaction of a designer. The other problem is that you say either hypothesis my be true. Evolution is not an hypothesis. Evolution is built upon millions of observed facts and is the model that explains these facts. ID is not even an hypothesis because it contains no testable postulations.