Indeed CottShop. Still it seems to me that questions regarding the "intelligent organizer" are higher-order questions that science is really not equipped to deal with, and wouldn't be even if it decided to admit first and final causes back into its method.
Nonetheless, as Chandra Wickramasinghe put it, "The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”
We do well to keep that in mind.
[[Still it seems to me that questions regarding the “intelligent organizer”]]
Ragarding the intelligent designer Himself is perhaps beyond science, but regarding His work, how He worked, What methods He used, How He accomplished them is not beyond the scope of science i nthe least it seems to me- given that all forensics science needs to do is show the how, not hte who (DNA evidence not withstanding- that’s a different issue in forensics nowadays, but does not udnermine the reliability of the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusions of hte past- while some cases might be proven wrong by DNA today, the VAST VAST majority of cases based simpyl on forensic annaylisis of hte how stil lstand as viable beyond resonable doubt conclusions
Macroevolutionary science certainly has nothign akin to DNA forensics to disprove God was hte Creator, Heck, they haven’t even got litmus tests to prove mutaitons were capable of violating scientifi laws- let alone address the Creator Hismelf- butr science does have hte tools and hte means to investigate the how