There are certain issues that seem to attract more readers than others on this blog. And looking at the posts from the past year, it is clear that the issue of Intelligent Design is one of them. Every time I post on this issue, hits to this blog go up. Now of course that isn't a sufficient reason to post about something. It may be the case that writing posts about Britney Spears might drive up traffic. But it just so happens that I am not interested in Britney Spears, whereas I am interested in the issue of Intelligent Design.
So why not start the year off with a bang?
I know the Darwinists get aggravated whenever I bring it up, but the question of the status of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory still fascinates me--largely because the whole question of where science ends and other disciplines such as philosophy begin is something I find fascinating.
Despite constant claims to the contrary by those who seem to like to shoot from the hip on what in the philosophy of science is called the "demarcation" question, I have professed repeatedly that I don't know whether Intelligent Design qualifies as science strictly speaking or not. But to further the discussion (or should we say "resume hostilities), I'll ask a question that came to mind the other day.
This has been said before in different ways, but, put very simply, if you say that the assertion that the universe as a whole or any particular part of it are intelligently designed is by necessity a non-scientific assertion, then have you not also committed yourself to saying that the opposite assertion--that the world or the things in it are not intelligently designed--is equally non-scientific?
If so, then what are the ramifications for Darwinism, since Darwinism necessarily involves the denial of the assertion of Intelligent Design?
In other words, if the question of whether the world is intelligently designed is a non-scientific question, then isn't any answer to the question--affirmative or negative--equally non-scientific? To put it another way, isn't a negative answer to a non-scientific question just as non-scientific as an affirmative answer to it? And if so, then what does that say, not only about the anti-Intelligent Design proclamations of some in the scientific community, but about the scientific status of Darwinism insofar as it is a denial of the Intelligent Design assertion?