the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science….the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis
Well, sort of. Dawkins’ essay from which this quote originated was quickly withdrawn after Mike Gene posed the question, Dawkins on the DI Payroll?
Will Richard maintain that position now that he was caught saying it? This will be a juicy quote for months to come!
I have said argued several times I think science can legitimately hypothesize God being a causal agent of nature. See Peer Reviewed Stealth ID Classic: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987) for a discussion of the God hypothesis based purely on physics with no appeal to philosophy or theology whatsoever.
Questions of God being the Intelligent Designer of all life are outside ID proper, but the question can still be posed, albeit outside of ID proper. His existence and action in the creation of the known universe is a compelling scientific hypothesis, and if He exists, it makes the case for a ID more plausible because we are guaranteed there will always exist a Designer with a sufficient skill set.