The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 4

The fourth point of the Intelligent Design Network statement of principles says:

"Institutional insistence for either a non-refutable materialistic or a Teleological assumption compromises the integrity of good Origins Science. Non-refutable assumptions are counter to the inherent skepticism of Science. They frustrate a search for an inference to the best of multiple competing explanations. These assumptions convert the protected explanation into an explanation designed to fit a preconception. The Institutionally protected explanation then becomes the prevailing orthodoxy or dogma rather than a scientific explanation open to question."

The key words here are rather straightforward.  “Insistence”, “Assumption” and “non-refutable”. 

This gets to the heart of the Overton definition of science in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.  Phrases like “in reference to natural law”, “explainable by natural law” suggest the assumption that all things can be explained by natural law.  Where is the empirical proof that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained purely in reference to natural law?  This position assumes the conclusion to its implied question. 

How does one refute this assumption?  Whenever ID or Creation proponents suggest that certain things cannot be explained by natural processes alone, the common response is that such a suggestion circumvents science by implying that a natural explanation will never be found.  So as long as the mere possibility exists, no matter how remote, that some mechanism can be discovered to explain a particular problem, naturalists argue that such a mechanism inevitably WILL be found.  Given enough time, the most remote improbability has to be possible. 

ID suggests that in certain cases, the probabilities of natural processes alone producing complex structures are essentially zero.  Chances are one to infinity.  Naturalists respond in a number of ways, but always tend to insist that given enough time, natural process can explain most anything.

They are insistent that natural processes alone can be the only explanatory causes for what we currently see.

They assume this with no way of offering any empirical proof for this assumption.

There is no ultimate way to refute this claim, because it is not based on observation of events in the past.

Note that the IDNet proposal does not deny that some aspects of teleological assumptions are equally non-refutable.  That is the whole point.  Certain assumptions have to be made by both sides for the simple reason that human beings are not omniscient. 

What is wrong with the current state of affairs is that the naturalists do not admit that 1.  they operate from assumptions and 2. those assumptions cannot be proven nor refuted.  So to insist on one set of assumptions and exclude others is simply unjustifiable.

The end result is that reasonable explanations of how certain pieces of the origins puzzle are excluded, harming the real purpose of origins science, which should be to seek the best explanation rather than the best naturalistic one.  And millions of folks who suspect that the universe is not merely material are told they must adopt a materialist stance if they are to engage in “true science”.