Wednesday, 6 October 2010
One component of the ID movement was to tackle the underpinning assumption of science: methodological naturalism. By including only natural explanations, it was said, science is making a commitment that excludes possible explanations that lie beyond that narrow scope. Yet where are the theoretical constructs and observations derived from a different philosophical commitment that can give better methodological success? They don't exist, the complaint amounts to little more than the ID advocate wishing to inject God into the process, as if "then a miracle occurs" actually explains something.