Science, the supposed realm of experiment, fact, and those less socially aware, becomes a terribly slippery thing if you try to box it into a single definition. Past attempts have all been found wanting, to the continued frustration of the historians and philosophers of science. Lately, the collapse of the positivist enterprise has allowed for a swirl of activity to fill the void left by the once-formidable system, yet there are no definitive systems that currently account for all of what we want to call "science." Attempts to exclude a line of inquiry such as that proposed by the proponents of ID can be done only from uncertain and misleading non-example aside, if a demonstrable Darwinian pathway for the evolution of the flagellum were found, it would injure the ID enterprise, and provide evidence against the claims of design.

Firstly, the ID proponents made clearly testable claims that are available for examination against the evidence. Behe asserted that there are structures in living organisms that could not in principle have been created by chance and necessity. Dembski concurred, and asked the Darwinians to supply him with a purely naturalistic explanation of the infamous bacterial flagellum. Professor Steiner’s self-proclaimed solution was nothing but a brief description of the means by which the flagellum is created by a bacterium, from DNA to proteins, and thus analogous to claiming Darwinian origins for a car since it, too, was built in stages at the plant. Steiner’s misleading non-example aside, if a demonstrable Darwinian pathway for the evolution of the flagellum were found, it would injure the ID enterprise, and provide evidence against the claims of design.

Later, Dembski elaborated on his own ideas for identifying design in general, ideas that can and should be tested in their ability to correlate with things that are known to be designed. As he noted, SETI, insurance fraud investigation, and other scientific programs make use of the chance/design distinction and rely on rigorous methods for discriminating between things designed and those left to chance and necessity.

Throughout, the ID thinkers of the last week all followed the same basic line of reasoning: the evidence does not support Darwinism, and there are natural structures that appear to be designed, therefore, these things are designed. How are these claims untestable? In what way are they not based on the evidence? Basing arguments on evidence, and developing systems testable against the evidence fits nicely within inference from the evidence, "the basic methodology of scientific inquiry." The methods of ID are the methods of modern science: look at the evidence.

A commitment to methodological naturalism in the strict sense is a recent development, and could very well blind us to the real state of things if there are supernatural or unnatural causes. This vaunted naturalism was formulated to protect inquiry from superstition and complacency. Naturalism today has become that superstition, and a dangerous belief if we are truly trying to understand the nature of things.

At this juncture it is essential to point out that ID says very little about the nature of the possible Designer. As far as basic ID theory is concerned, as long as the Designer is designing and intelligent, any number of beings could suffice. The Christian God, Allah, or extra-dimensional aliens from some unpronounceable planet could be the source of the design ID proponents see in the natural world. Each of the three ID speakers of the last week came from varying metaphysical and religious backgrounds to argue for the apparent presence of design in the world around us.

Though its difficult to predict the exact shape an ID overhaul of science would take, it would likely be along the lines pursued by Galileo, Kepler, DaVinci, Newton, Boyle, and a host of other great scientists whose extrascientific belief in a deigning God gave them a reason for investigating the order of the universe. With Darwinism guiding inquiry, we may well dismiss important organs, systems, and events as "vestigial" and never learn of their possibly vital role in the human body. If organisms are shown to be designed, then their workings and existence are of far greater importance and cause for investigation than is they are the chance products of the material world. In this way, it is Darwinism that violates any "philosophical presuppositions" of science by supplying no reason for science at all.

Finally, science is neither autonomous nor innocuous within its modern confines. The ideas that govern how we view the physical world ineluctably bleed over to influence how we view what most deem the nonphysical. Alvin Plantinga, probably the greatest Christian philosopher of modern times, faulted Darwinism for its "Grand Evolutionary Myth." Darwinism, by placing chance and necessity as the sole cause for all in existence, undercuts any foundation for morality or the sublime. Further, by giving us story of why we are here, who we are, and where we are going, Darwinian evolution functions at a quasi-religious level, and conflicts with a Christian understanding of man, his world, and the God who "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11).

If we build walls across the world, dividing science from nonscience, we will lose our sense of the universality of truth, and become blind to the cultural and philosophical effects of our science. When we study the world, there is but one world we study. Unless we are willing to slip into a more subjective notion of many truths and compromise the common desire for scientific realism, we must remember that the truth of the world is one truth.