A reader with a thought-provoking comment:

“Mr. Derbyshire—As you pointed out science by definition is concerned with natural explanations only and this is a sufficient reason for a scientist to reject supernatural theories such as ID. What I rarely find mentioned is the reason why this is so. The reason has nothing to do with professional ethics.
“For a moment let us assume that the ID-ers are correct, that a supernatural being or beings created life on Earth. Now you certainly could have a universe with supernatural beings interacting with it, but science could not exist in such a universe. Here’s why. If one is aware of the existence of supernatural beings then their actions will be the assumed cause of just about every natural phenomena there is and there will be no incentive to find alternate explanations. This is the situation in primitive cultures even today. On the other hand, if one is not aware of their existence, then effects will be observed without any observable causes, and inferences about the natural world will be impossible (except perhaps for the idea that
unseen supernatural beings are controlling everything!)
“This is the fundamental conflict between science and mysticism. Science can only function if nature follows rules. The idea that supernatural beings who are unbounded by any rules can somehow be incorporated into the natural world is, by definition, impossible. This does not mean that supernatural beings cannot exist, but it does place severe limits on their interaction with the natural world if science is to be useful for understanding it.
“Those who readily apply supernatural causes to the question of human origins as Creationist/ID-ers do, are basically saying that scientific inquiry into that question is pointless. If one is willing to concede that one area of inquiry is unsuitable to scientific study, then what is to say that science will provide any useful insight into any other area? If an Intelligent Designer is the answer to one question, how are we to know that it isn’t the answer to all of them?”

The key phrase there is “severe limits on their interaction.” If there is an omnipotent God, and His interactions with the physical universe are of anything more intimate than the wind-it-up-and-let-it-run variety, then, since natural laws are His, presumably He can violate them any time He feels like it.

This does rather take the point out of scientific investigation. If, after a lifetime of diligent inquiry, you managed to establish the existence of a natural law like, say, the Law of Universal Gravitation; and then you were suddenly confronted with a levitating swami; you would be entitled to feel that you had been wasting your time.

On the other hand, if God only interferes once in every few million years, scientific inquiry might still be worthwhile on the asteroid-strike principle. (I.e. there is a nonzero probability it might happen, but not one worth losing sleep over.)

Now *there* is a possible research project for some ID-believer: Try to come up with an estimate for how frequently God sticks His finger in the evolutionary works. Then we would at least know the degree to which

scientific inquiry is pointless.