I think it’s time to wrap up the ID debate, and a reader has supplied my
with an appropriate valediction to the issue, by expressing a sane point of
view on the matter with exceptional lucidity. Thank you, Sir.
“John Derbyshire—I have written a few e-mails to you about the dishonesty
on the part of the ID deniers. Now to the dishonesty of IDers. Intelligent
Design supposes that supernatural forces have crafted the world as we see
it. Supernatural forces are simply not within the scope of science.
Science necessarily only concerns itself with natural phenomena and natural
causes. Supernatural causes are not testable, quantifiable, or qualifiable.
They are simply not the scope of science. ID is unscience. Those
proponents of ID are simply not insisting on better science. They are
insisting on being antithetical to science and sitting down at the science
table. Science cannot and should not concern itself with causes that it
cannot empirically demonstrate or test. It should make no assertion that
cannot be shown to be false by another scientist using the scientific
“No one should insist that science not be science. It is akin to Stephen J.
Gould telling the religious community that they are still valuable because
of their strong system of morality, while insisting that the belief system
on which that system is based be consigned to the ash-heap of history.
Religion seeks transcendant powers at work in the world. Science concerns
itself only with the temporal and the natural. Why insist that either side
bend to the other? Is either correct? Probably not. Science is
perpetually being reinvented. Religion, while dogmatic, is also dynamic and
engaged. Why insist that at this time in history one element is entirely
correct to the exclusion of all future discovery?”