Some years ago I also accepted Darwin’s “Theory.” A colleague of mine (who cannot be remotely classified as being a believer of any religion) got to me thinking about the assumptions of the Darwinist model. After much reading (and thinking) I found that the Darwinist model fails Popper’s test of falsifiability. Secondly, after looking at the interior of a cell, I find it very difficult to “believe” that everything in it got there accidentally. (For a fascinating look at a bacterial flagellum, go to the video at uncommondescent.com;
explain how that intricate dance happened by accident.) Of course, just because we do not currently have a naturalistic explanation for how everything came about, that does not to say that, at some future time, a naturalistic explanation will not be discovered. It may very well be. Right now, though, that remains a metaphysical speculation. Consequently, intelligent design should be a viable alternative hypothesis. But please do not confuse intelligent design with creationism. One is potentially scientific and one is not.

An alternative to either the Darwinist model or to intelligent design is to say we do not know. I think that is a perfectly legitimate scientific approach. Knowing that we do not know may impel us to look for a scientific alternative to what is being passed off for now as science. I may add, that one of the early commenters here compared the global warming hypothesis to the intelligent design hypothesis. I think quite the opposite: the global warming hypothesis is much closer to the Darwinist model than it is to the intelligent design model.

Docjay