there still remain unanswered many fundamental questions about nature….nothing should be prohibited as a legitimate subject of science, and excluding the supernatural out of hand serves no useful purpose.
Moreover, it does not seem a simple task to offer a satisfactory definition of the difference between “natural” and “supernatural.” A phenomenon which seems to be contrary to known theories and therefore appears to be a miracle, and, hence, to meet the concept of the supernatural, may find a “natural” explanation in the course of a subsequent research. The distinction between natural and supernatural belongs more to philosophy than to science.
ID does not necessarily imply supernatural agencies. However, the discussion of science and the supernatural is still an interesting question. It came up because of some blogs on methodological naturalism by Paul Nelson and Jason Rosenhouse. Though I side with Paul Nelson, it would be good to read Jason’s essay as well.
Somewhere along the line Mark Perakh offered his views in response to Rosenhouse on Pandas Thumb, and his book (partly online) I thought was worth quoting. The text in context is at: Sceince and the Supernatural
Finally, Jason Rosenhouse said something that caught my interest:
Has anyone in the history of the universe ever denied the bare possibility that the world is the product of intelligent design? I’m as hard-core an atheist as you’re likely to meet, but I think it’s such a live possibility that I spend an inordinate amount of time reading what religious people have to say on the subject.
I’m glad he thinks ID is a live possibility.
I would also like to make the observation that Perakh’s position would probably be unacceptable to the Darwinists in Kansas trying to overturn the state science standards.