As speaker and author Frank Turek explains on his useful Cross Examined App, this objection depends on what you mean by "science:"
"What do you mean by science?
Are archaeologists doing science when they inter that there was an intelligent cause for an inscription or a piece of pottery?
Are homicide detectives doing science when they engage in a forensic investigation and discover that an intelligent being committed a murder?
If Intelligent Design (ID) isn't science, then neither is evolution. ID theorists are using the same forensic/historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That's all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can't go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life.
Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation.
Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?
Who defines the limits and rules of science? If certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn't mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth-not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science (which begs the question)."
So, is ID science? That depends on your definition of science. As a theist, I am free to follow the evidence wherever it leads because my philosophical convictions don't box me in. Admittedly, one should always consider natural explanations first; however, if detectable design is present, one should be at liberty to conclude that a designer is the best explanation of the phenomenon being observed.
To check out our "Common Objections" series, go here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Common Objection #8- "Intelligent Design is Magic"
Common Objection #26- "Science Can Account for Everything!"
Debate Video: Fazale Rana vs. Michael Ruse on Evolution vs. Design
"What do you mean by science?
Are archaeologists doing science when they inter that there was an intelligent cause for an inscription or a piece of pottery?
Are homicide detectives doing science when they engage in a forensic investigation and discover that an intelligent being committed a murder?
If Intelligent Design (ID) isn't science, then neither is evolution. ID theorists are using the same forensic/historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That's all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can't go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life.
Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation.
Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?
Who defines the limits and rules of science? If certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn't mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth-not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science (which begs the question)."
So, is ID science? That depends on your definition of science. As a theist, I am free to follow the evidence wherever it leads because my philosophical convictions don't box me in. Admittedly, one should always consider natural explanations first; however, if detectable design is present, one should be at liberty to conclude that a designer is the best explanation of the phenomenon being observed.
To check out our "Common Objections" series, go here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Common Objection #8- "Intelligent Design is Magic"
Common Objection #26- "Science Can Account for Everything!"
Comments