Pronouncing a unseen ID as the cause of some of these changes is a leap to metaphysics. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying you have gone beyond science to philosophy.
First, I'm not pronouncing, I'm asking.
But beyond that, is pronouncing an unseen force called gravity as causing changes in positions of objects metaphysics? No one has ever seen gravity. No one has ever touched, tasted, smelled, or heard it. We postulate its existence purely by observing interactions of bodies and theorizing that there is a force to which we give the name gravity. We know it only by what it does. It is as mysterious and unknown as any postulated ID.
So is that going beyond science to philosophy?
Mind, I'm not saying that some ID exists. Only that it could exist, that there are observable phenemona which we so far are unable to explain by any theory, and that the hypothesis of an ID is no less valid than any other hypothesis and more likely than many.
Many hypotheses which for years were totally discredited have turned out, after some courageous scientists dared to study them, proved to be validated. Plate techtonics is just the latest of them. Tell some scientists of the 19th century that the continents moved all over the place floating around on a sea of molten rock and you would have been locked up in a looney bin and the key thrown away. But for time being, that's now an accepted theory. Until the next evidence comes along to change that theory, too.
All I'm saying is that the search for the cause of the existence of the first life form is still open, and every hypothesis is fair game, and is science, not metaphysics. |
