I’ve said that I accept ID as true, but I don’t think ID is science. By way of extension, I have the the same view of Creationism…
I believe in the principles that make a light switch work. I can switch on a light and then switch it off. I can repeat the process on demand. It makes it easy for me to believe the light switch is real. I can explain its operation in terms of repeatable mechanisms, mechanisms that by-and-large are repeatable and accessible, and therefore believable.
Understandably we would tend to believe in things we can explain and reduce to mechanisms we can understand. We would tend NOT to believe in things we can’t reduce to repeatable experiments or mechanisms we can understand.
Some of us (not me) would only believe in things that are reducible to mechanisms we can understand and repeat on demand.
So what about miracles or the Intellgent Design of life (which includes our life)? Some will say they will believe in miracles if they could understand it or repeat it experimentally. That’s reasonable, I have no objection to that personally, except…
If you could repeat miracles on demand, miracles of any scale on demand, you’d be God! So people who insist on being given an explanation of large scale miracles and in terms of experimental proof have in effect said, they’ll only believe in God if they are God themselves. There is again a certain logic to that…
On the other hand, evolutionary biologists like Koonin will appeal to multi-universes (or whatever he calls it) to explain the origin of life. But these are untestable, unknowable, and beyond the reach of human knowledge, observation, and experiment. So how is this that much different than Creationism except that such a multiverse mechanism isn’t a personal conscious mind?
And then I’ll ask evolutionary biologists and abiogenesis promoters for an explanation of this or that phenomenon and then get hand wave answers and appeals to mechanisms that are to my mind conflicted or unworkable, and are virtual appeals to unknowable, untestable mechanisms that look indistinguishable from miracles. How is that different from Creationism except that such assertions insist there is no need of miracles, and such assertions are not stated with any semblance of proof, and in fact go contrary to accepted principles of physics and chemistry! Case in point is Koonin’s appeal to multiverses for the origin of life. He may as well appeal to such mechanisms for certain evolutionary transitions too, since several are pretty improbable as a matter of principle.
So I see a double standard. People like Stenger will say they won’t believe something without being able to reproduce it experimentally, but then they go off and believe exactly what they can’t prove – like muli-universes or whatever!
I suppose one could be an agnostic in these matters. I’ve had bouts of agnosticism too, but one thing I can’t accept is that life is explained by principles of chemistry and physics. This is like expecting a tornado passing through a junkyard making a 747 jetliner.
Given that we all have faith, I’ve put my faith that God is the Intelligent Designer of life and the universe.