Science and Design

Salvo senior editor Casey Luskin gives a good response to the criticism that intelligent design cannot be proven by science.

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design

. . .

Dr. McPeek says, "Science is having hypotheses and then testing them." There's nothing wrong with that statement. He goes on to say that "science can only support or refute hypotheses that are empirically testable." There's nothing wrong with that statement either. The problem is when he says that ID "is not" such a testable hypothesis. But as seen in the quote above, this accusation is made right after Dr. McPeek made his inaccurate statement that we can "never empirically know or understand the actions of … any … Intelligent Designer." On the contrary, if we can empirically know and understand the actions of intelligent agents, then we can make testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent causation was at work.

continue reading

I highly recommend reading it in its entirety. Casey contributes regularly to Salvo and wrote the cover story for the latest issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.