Intelligent Design is often dismissed from being a legitimate science that could be taught in public schools because it is identified to be religious in nature, or at least advocating biblical creationism. Several in the intelligent design movement have attempted to get a foothold in the secular academic sciences by shedding theological undertones and denying that the intelligence behind the design of nature must necessarily be a deity. But many naturalistic scientists are still—even with this demarcation—not keen on allowing intelligent design to even be considered as a viable explanation for the origin of what we see in nature. This refusal is due to their assumption of Naturalism, their prior commitment to materialistic explanations for the origin of everything in the universe. The National Academy of Sciences maintains, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.”[1] Thus, science is redefined by those in power to only include naturalistic explanations. Any non-material cause is by default thrown out as unscientific. Why? Simply because Naturalism demands we only find causes that are themselves part of the natural order.
If science were to simply stay within the parameters of what can be immediately observed or immediate causal relationships that can be demonstrated within the timeframe of human documentation, then less disagreement would exist between people of various worldviews about what would constitute proper science. It is the overarching explanations that reach beyond these narrow parameters that are so hotly debated because we have entered a realm where we are interpreting the observable data. However, the process of learning must necessarily involve interpreting the data. Understanding the universe cannot be relegated to just stating cold, hard, observable facts. It must move to drawing warranted conclusions from the facts, finding a scenario that best makes sense of the data.
Adherents to the general theory of evolution go beyond the observable facts of the universe and present a narrative about the past. They have neither observed nor documented the development of every living thing from a common, single-celled ancestor. Nevertheless, they see it as perfectly within their purview to go beyond observable data and draw conclusions about our origins and where we fit in the universal scheme of things. Why then shouldn’t other narratives — such as the vague intelligent design narrative or the specific record of origins found in the Bible — be presented with how they comport with the observable data? Are naturalistic scientists afraid that the hypothesis of an intelligent cause for various aspects of design in the physical world (such as consciousness itself, irreducible complexity in organs, or complex specified aperiodic genetic information) may have greater explanatory power than their narrative that these things just happened from accidental, random events? In many places of science education today, rules of reasoning are being enforced that do not allow alternatives to the official narrative of evolution. Truth has nothing to hide from open investigation; proper scientific inquiry should allow for possible falsification (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Students of science should not be prevented from asking relevant questions that can yield better explanations just because some people in power have a blind commitment to Naturalism.
– Mark Day
[1] Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. (1998) <https://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/4#42>.
