In science, “we’ll have a naturalistic answer some day” is pseudo-science and should be ruled offside, says Don Johnson, author of Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability, writes UD to say,
While acknowledging that science continues to gain new insights (as
should be the case), the claim that “we don’t have a natural explanation yet, but we will someday” is not a scientific statement It amounts to a “naturalism of the gaps” dogma.
When that dogma violates known science, particularly information science, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate stances that purport to be science, but are actually pseudo-scientific speculations.
The question is whose gaps are more reasonable? We can readily empirically examine information, and when we KNOW its source, it invariably had an intelligent source. The anti-IDists believe making logical inferences where we don’t know the source is unscientific, so real scientists can dogmatically assert “science will know someday, but it definitely involved no intelligence.” (See POL, p. viii)
Saying “science will know the answer some day” is often just an IOU dated: Infinity 😉