Replies

. . . the investigation seeks and thus can only arrive at a naturalistic conclusion. It is the only place it looks because naturalism is the presupposition to the investigation.

One has to begin somewhere. With naturalistic presuppositions intelligent design is hardly an easy matter to deduce, if possible at all. The theory of intelligent design presumes without proof that organized matter behaving under predictable laws is evidence of intelligent design. It is no more necessary for science to show in some material fashion "who" this designer is than it is for a play to bring its director onto the stage every moment just to assure the audience the play has a director. In fact, it would essentially spoil the play.

It is my contention that science would have no object if matter were not organized in such a way as to be manifest to the observer, whether physically or mentally. It is hardly an unreasonable leap of logic to consider that, where matter is organized, design is involved, and where design is involved, there is intelligence. For what reason might one be inclined to reject this fairly reasonable point of view? The wind blows where it will . . .

The theory of evolution also presumes without proof, that the presence of organized matter can be attributed to any number of causes other than intelligent design. That is the prerogative of those who espouse it, though I do not consider it proper to hide one's assumptions and proceed as if they have the only scientific point of view. The evidence for naturalistic science fits very well. In fact, there is nothing in the known universe that cannot possibly be explained by so-called natural causes. That includes so-called miracles.

Thank you oh so very much for your reply, Fester Chugabrew! I was deeply concerned I had unintentionally caused offense by intervening in the earlier sidebar. If I did, I apologize.

I certainly agree with you that if the universe were not ordered it would not be intelligible at all and science would have nothing to do. Indeed, science and scientists would not exist. Thus, the order of the universe itself suggests there is a guide to the system.

Reasoning confirms this because order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Order cannot rise spontaneously. The physical laws for instance are a guide to weather. And when we reason through cosmology, we know there was a beginning (because physical causation relies on geometry) and thus there is a guide to the universe itself from the beginning, an uncaused cause which is not a physical cause.

Likewise, the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner, Vafa) suggests a guide to the system. Ditto for information (successful communications) in biological systems, autonomy and the ilk.

The “official” approach to science is “methodological naturalism” which means ”that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved.“ Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That is rather bland, innocent, non-offensive. However, when naturalism becomes the presupposition of the inquiry, it means the scientists have put blinders on, drawn boundaries, scrawled “here there be dragons” on the edges of the protocols.

Getting rid of that presupposition is the objective of the Intelligent Design movement (as opposed to the Intelligent Design hypothesis).

But that doesn’t mean people expect science to come up with laboratory tests for a particular intelligent agent. It means they want science to keep an open mind, go where the evidence leads them – like they do in physics and in mathematics.