This you must listen to: an eloquent and provocative discussion by David Berlinski, speaking with ENV‘s Casey Luskin. (Is DB ever not eloquent?) It’s a podcast originating with our sister site ID the Future.
Luskin asks Berlinski about Nick Matzke’s supposed refutation, from the study of cladistics, of the argument in Darwin’s Doubt. David says what he says on that. More interestingly, he draws the conclusion that major questions in science, including pertaining to evolution and the Cambrian explosion, may be “practically undecidable.” He offers that phrase, a recognition that the truth may be permanently obscured from us, as a category that should be more widely applied in scientific discussion. Maybe so.
Of course it’s rejected by Matzke and other Darwin partisans, and it’s not the conclusion drawn by advocates of the theory of intelligent design either. But the ID field is more than prepared to grant a hearing to scientific agnosticism whereas Darwinian orthodoxy absolutely rejects it and demands immediate capitulation.
That tells you something.