[MODERATOR EDIT: This thread was split of from discussion in Are All Christians Who Affirm Evolution Deists?]
Well thankyou Mr. Horton! You have made my point so perfectly!
Since we are not talking about developing a vaccine but the history of life on this perfectly ordered planet, we cannot repeat what occurred in the past. If im an atheist, representative of less than 5% population (and you probably could convince me that im more likely an agnostic)…but if im an atheist, then i must demand that no intelligence be involved in the scientific inquiry to appeal to my belief. If Im a theist however and im interested to find the truth of the existence , i will never completely trust naturalistic science for determining the TRUTH of how we got here. . Why is this you ask? Because i have to quite logically assume that a Creator exists and could have done anything in any point in the creation and development of life. Naturalism demands natural paths. Creation confuses it.
So for the more logically minded theist, understanding the chess pieces of life and ruling out illogical and ruling in logical options can point to or away from intelligence and is going to get closer to truth than just developing models about how i think nature to made life. That is ID VS evolutionism. ID is NOT trying to define the nature of intelligence. It is interested to give it a stake of possibility to rule it in or out
Lets look at some examples:
Lets say its absolutelty true that God created kinds that via adaptation and Gods intervention speciated the planet. Pretend now that this is the truth that science is trying to discover. Also acknowledge that because atheism is such a far out unreasonable faith, this theistic based option is more rational than one that will be developed on the back of atheism .
Lets now see if ID science or naturalistic science gets closer to a model that describes this truth. ID is incredibly scientific. They are serious about the scientific method. They are serious about statistical analysis. And they take all of the ingredients including the nature of mutations, selection, and time and want to rule out highly statistical improbable events via nature thus point to or away from Intelligence and to or away to nature.
The naturalistic scientist is also serious about the scientific method but they never entertain intelligence. They understand statistics but are disinterested in investing a lot of time here because the DEMAND that intelligence be left out means that stats determining a sensible methodology dont matter as much if at all. In fact, if a highly unlikely event occurs, they will tend to add more time to give nature a chance. They think that nature MUST HAVE caused life via evolution (no other choice) so all they can do is build some models as guesses how nature could do this and call this the proof.
So which option gets closer to the truth? Both wont get it perfectly, but who is closer? ID!
Lets apply the same test to the consideration that God did create via common decent evolution with speckled intervention in the process and ( i feel ridiculous saying this because even this seems so stinking illogical) ID is again very serious about science. They are very serious about statistical analysis that wants to rule in or out intelligence and in or out nature. On the other hand, naturalism is not as interested in statistical analysis as much that wants to rule in or out intelligence so they assume nature did it and go back into the business of making models., Who gets closer to the truth? ID again…if they are honest that is. In other words, if ID cannot rule out an event as statistically improbable, they wont rule it out and build a model more closely resembling the type of evolution over the more arbituary models built by naturalism.
I think even an honest ID proponent gets closer to the truth of methodology about some fully natural micro evolutionary event if the above parameters are in place. I have tried, but cannot in good conscience even propose that it could be possible that life as we know it could have evolved via pure chance selection to see if ID VS naturalism is better. Principle holds that probability can only be determined with what is possible and i believe ID has accuratelty determined that this case is just so nearly impossible in its methodology that we just call it what it is. I cannot even make this a scenario because it is too unlikely and surreal if we take what we know of mutations, selection seriously.