I'll note that I was speaking specifically of "supernatural causes", not merely "intelligent design".
To assert that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic
They are not scientific because they are neither testable nor falsifiable.
The postulate that there was agency involved in the origin of life and its diversity is no more outside the bounds of that which is directly or indirectly observable, testable and falsifiable than is the postulate of unobservable genealogical connections between organisms as the result of purely mechanistic processes.
Sure it is, because you are adding in an additional element, agency, when the theory of evolution, as it stands, accounts for the evidence just fine without it. Which is not to say that one may not also believe in a supernatural agency behind it, but this belief is not a matter of science.
Presumably, you do not deny that it is possible that the actions of an unobservable agent could have empirical consequences in the present, do you?
It is not my place to deny it. If you wish to assert that actions of a (in terms of what I was discussing above) supernatural agent could have empirical consequences in the present, then it is incumbent upon you to come up with evidence for it, and formulate a testable hypothesis by which first, one could distinguish between supernatural and natural causes, and second, one could repeatedly demonstrate evidence of supernatural agency. That is, if you wish to insist that religion be accepted as science.
And when we are speaking of causes, what metaphysically neutral criteria is there for excluding causes that are non- naturalistic as in the case of a postulate of intelligent agency and design of life? Asserting that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic simply assumes the very thing in question.
They are not scientific because they are neither testable nor falsifiable.
If the demand that ANY putative causes necessary to origins theories have to be directly observable if they are to be considered testable and scientific were applied impartially it would require the exclusion not only of design but also of common descent. What do you mean by "testable" or "falsifiable" in the context of origin theories?
... when the theory of evolution, as it stands, accounts for the evidence just fine without it.
That's the bone of contention. A lot of people think TOE can accommodate a lot of the evidence, but that it doesn't account very well for it because it can also accommodate its absence just as well.
If you wish to assert that actions of a (in terms of what I was discussing above) supernatural agent could have empirical consequences in the present, then it is incumbent upon you to come up with evidence for it, and formulate a testable hypothesis by which first, one could distinguish between supernatural and natural causes, and second, one could repeatedly demonstrate evidence of supernatural agency... That is, if you wish to insist that religion be accepted as science.
Well, as to the first part I think it is already well under way, but I'll get right to work on it. As to the allegation that I'm insisting that religion be accepted as science, the article that is loosely the subject of these posts addresses that point:
"...Second, the document does not propose replacing “science” or the “scientific method” with “God” or “religion.” Instead, it supports a science that is “consonant” (i.e., harmonious) with theism, rather than hostile to it. To support a science that is “consonant” with religion is not to claim that religion and science are the same thing. They clearly arn't."
Cordially,