In your view, is God's -supernatural- intervention into a natural system
something that is theoretically in the realm(s) of:
(1) physical science?
(2) reason?
(3) philosophy?
(4) theology?
(5) Blind faith?
My answer, FWIW, would be that it's properly in realms 2, 3, and 4. (There
may be some overlap between realms, obviously -- e.g., science, philosophy,
and at least largely theology seem to me species of reason, but some will
disagree on that.)
Can I -imagine- ID theory being in realm 1? Well, I guess I can think up
alternate universes in which such might be the case, but it's hard right now
to see it in the actual universe. (Suppose, e.g., that the most naive
charismatic and fundamentalist Christians were right, and having simple
faith inevitably meant we could effect physical miracles: every time, on
demand, no non-theistic explanation. Then one might be able to build a
science on that. But alas, that is purely a thought experiment. But it may
be enough to prove the point -in principle-. I suppose methodological
naturalism in science, but not as part of the very -essence- of science, but
rather as an important, time-tested, theoretically justified practical rule.
I can -imagine- rejecting it, but see no current reason to.)
My point for years has been that if ID advocates want to move it into 1, all
they need do is come up with not philosophically or rationally compelling
argument, but EMPIRICAL arguments, new, detailed, intersubjective/objective
theories that make unambiguous, novel, and successful predictions even
according to those with no prior commitment to ID. That'll make it not just
TRUE, but SCIENCE.
I can imagine their eventually doing this; but I don't think they're too
close just yet.
If they can do this, then ID will become another field that leaves
(speculative) philosophy to become science, like every current science
before it.
If they (as I suspect) cannot or do not do this, then it will never become a
science (even -if- it's true).
Okay, a second question: are these conditionals things BOTH sides can agree
on? I would think so, even though the first antecedent will strike most
scientists as absurd. But were it to happen....
I'd appreciate the group's thoughts.
John