Andrew Klavan at the Daily Wire talked with our geologist colleague Casey Luskin about the scientific evidence for intelligent design, and about related subjects, including whether ID can properly be called a “science.” Asks Klavan, playing what he calls the role of devil’s advocate: Does ID grant the certainty that science, and perhaps only science, does? In response, Dr. Luskin breaks down a misconception embedded in the question. 

Science is not about granting certainty. Luskin gives as an illustration his own field, geology, which “studies events of the past,” much like intelligent design does. In both of these examples of historical science, researchers draw inferences about what happened, how it happened, and why. They judge the probability of one explanation compared with an another. However, “We’re never going to have 100 percent certainty. If you’re looking for 100 percent, absolute certainty, then science is the wrong place to go.” 

The parallel between geology and ID is helpful and interesting. Luskin also quotes Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who warned, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” That’s a fascinating admission, but Crick went on, stating the hazards that go with trying to use science to understand the past: “It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult.” (Emphasis added.)

That sounds like a summons to humility if ever there was one. Watch the rest of this excellent conversation here: