posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:24 PM
The question is not an intelligent hand vs evolutionary systems dichotomy, but rather a finite vs infinite dichotomy.
If we are living in an infinite universe (cosmos, multi-verse, multiple dimensions, etc...), then by the rules of probability, everything can happen,
has already happened an infinite times in the past, and will be repeated an infinite amount of times in the future. Thus the possibility for a complex
structure like the eyeball to spontaneously appear on a little rock orbiting a little star in a remote corner of a galaxy is perfectly acceptable. So
too is the possibility that an entity creates themselves out of nothing, being omnipotent and omniscient - this benevolent watchmaker kick starts a
process on an isolated little rock in hopes of someday generating creatures which will worship him. Finally the possibility that inert chemicals
organize themselves to such an extent that they participate in an evolutionary system out of a soup of amino acids on a little rock is also there.
If we, however are living in a finite universe, well then all bets are off. Looking at the edges of science today, this may be the case (finite energy
in the universe, discrete levels of energy, discrete lengths and spans of time, expansion and waveform limited by a bounded cosmos). What this does
mean, however, is that the system is bound by set rules - and of those the existence of an omnipresence force or guiding hand could be one of them -
with the converse being that by the fluke of the rules of the system an evolutionary system of chemicals can exist.
This isn't to say that the reality we live in is not a finite defined realm existing in an infinite (non discrete) cosmos.
Science is science because we have defined it against a hard set of logical positivism rules. Even in science, the definition of the word Theory is
very specifically defined. (Thus right now we do not have an ID theory, we have an ID hypothesis. ES is not a hypothesis but a theory because the
results of repeated tests have shown that a specific pattern to be reproduced)
Regardless of your stance (ID vs ES), both sides need to be more flexible.
ID proponents need to understand that in the current system of science, un-testable theories need to remain in the realm of philosophical until such
time they can produce reproducible evidence of such. Because our thinking paradigm is logical positivism, they can only do this by proving a positive
instance of, rather than disproving the non-existence of.
On the other hand ES proponents need to realize that by focusing specifically on logical positivism as their only route to the truth they are
overlooking a huge realm of possibilities - and should focus on taking a more myth buster approach to scientific problems (ockham's razor isn't the
only way to build a mousetrap).
Thus until ID can produce scientific evidence it will never, and should never, be accepted as science - however, at the same time, as scientists, one
should not limit their pursuit of ideas which they think are controversial just because they are controversial. Additionally, science shouldn't be
setting itself to mock hypotheses they can not disprove (impossible in logical positivism - you can only prove something you can not disprove but only
prove a negative - but then again I can't prove Unicorns do not exist so ...).