“I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID). Leaving out numerous details, ID is having a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide scientific theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications. After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big ‘G’ immediately enters the realm of possibilities. Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices.”
“The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a scientific theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc.—that other widely accepted scientific theories have. For more details on this I recommend two sources: The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998 by William Dembski and Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, 1999 also by William Dembski.”
“To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is bad science or illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another. The “people in charge”, i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen—naturalism must be protected at all costs, from their point of view. Why doesn’t TO mention or elaborate on any of this to its readers? Deception by omission.”
ID does not specify any religious faith. I know an atheist who believes ID over molecular evolution just based on facts. (and is really starting to question the whole theory of evolution) He is not an intellectual slouch either. Even the Christian evolutionist believes that life exists because of an Intelligent Designer.
Anyway, the only religion that is totally opposed to ID are Naturalists. And their opposition is clearly not based upon science.
As far as the ability to 'falsify' evolution consider the following:
- Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes 'directed panspermia' (i.e., 'DNA originated somewhere 'out in space' and somehow made its way to Earth') since it is clear (to Crick) that no earthly cause for DNA is scientifically reasonable.
- Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, New York, 1986) assumes the number (10^20 by his accounting) of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).
- Barrow and Tipler (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1986) go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge. Kauffman (The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford, 1993) takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler.
- Kauffman brings into the panorama a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through (only) natural process.
Now, some may choose to argue that these distinguished gentlemen are simply doing 'science'-proposing theories to explain observations, among other things. However...
The term to remember here was 'falsifiable'-and, to take just one example, we might ask ourselves how one goes about falsifying an infinite number of universes.
Here's the point to all of this:
If we are allowed to propose essentially anything (aliens, parallel universes, 10^20 planets, extra dimensions, time travel, etc., etc.) in order to uphold our theory then how will it ever be possible for that theory to be truly falsifiable? As clever and imaginative as we humans are, wouldn't we be able to-don't we-contrive just about anything that would allow us to retain the position or theory that we cherish?Well, not always. All human cleverness and imagination could not save the phlogiston theory, the notion of blood humors, the geocentric model, and many other now defunct ideas. There is, however, one major difference where evolution is concerned-a difference that makes evolution impervious to that which toppled these aforementioned and now extinct ideas. That difference is the intimate and critical connection between evolution and philosophical naturalism-a metaphysical (i.e., religious) connection.
As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as 'scientifically valid', the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that evolution is the de facto answer. This matter may be expanded in many directions so I'll end on this note: eliminate evolution and what are the remaining options? Naturalists know well that to eliminate evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity. Therefore, evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable. The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible.