Science, Intelligent Design and Self Imposed Limitations
Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd said, “Even if all the facts point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Todd S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
The question that comes to my mind is, shouldn’t Science be the search for any true explanation? Why does it HAVE to exclude an intelligent designer? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because we don’t like where it’s leading, does that give us the right to reject a theory that fits the facts well? Something seems awful fishy here. Do I smell human bias? Doesn’t this seem to contradict how science theoretically should operate?
Does a scientist think up a hypothesis out of the blue and then search for facts innocently, unbiasedly, with no pre-conception based on the love of the truth? Or…does an evolutionist begin with a certain bias, trying to keep his/her grant funding and then look for evidences to support those biases in the form of “facts” to fit a certain agenda?
Ask yourself honestly. Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation…whatever that may be? I say again…Whatever it may be?