Geologist Casey Luskin had a great exchange about intelligent design and the scientific method. On a podcast for the Reasons to Believe organization, someone in the online audience challenged the participants. The audience member, Dan, asserted that ID is merely a cover for apologetics. The apologist goes out seeking support for his own theology, to persuade others, or to persuade himself, that his belief is right. According to Dan, that is different from methodological naturalism (MN) which is a neutral approach to sifting scientific evidence.
Good challenge! In mic drop fashion, Dr. Luskin replies that the reverse is true. ID uses the scientific method, is testable, and is perfectly happy when it yields a natural explanation for any given phenomenon. It’s also open to explanations that recognize the activity of a designing mind, when evidence supports that conclusion. The ID scientist who is a religious believer believes whatever he does for reasons of his own — not because he “used” ID to support his view. I would add, that’s why ID proponents are as interestingly diverse as they are, which is one reason ID (compared with apologetics) has the credibility it does.
In the hands of the atheist scientist, on the other hand, a codicil is added to MN that arbitrarily excludes seeing intelligent activity behind phenomena in biology and cosmology. That codicil, a matter of personal or philosophical preference, binds and blinds the scientist in a way that is NOT scientific. ID, as Luskin explains, is thus the superior, more open, and truly scientific tool. Awesome and concise! Watch the exchange for yourself, from 1:12:10 to 1:24:16. Here, I’ve cued it up for you: