Does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design explain anything?
Some argue that the idea of an uncased Causer is necessary. Others retort that to
say that “God did it,” is a cop-out, which explains nothing.
Interestingly theists and non-theists do science the same
way and invoke the same immutable and elegant laws of science to both explain
and predict. However, when we try to account for these laws or regularities,
the very foundations of science, we separate into warring camps, one side invoking
“naturalism,” the other “supernaturalism” (ID).
Can naturalism explain the existence, immutability, and
elegance of the “natural” laws better than ID? It would seem that neither
hypothesis should be summarily dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment