It seems to me, considering how much we’ve discovered which existed prior to human detection (radio waves, electromagnetic fields and force and so on), it seems the materialists who are saying there is nothing else are the ones bearing the burden of proof.
Derbyshire also seems to argue in bad faith in his other writings on this subject. Anyone who calls ID “Intelligent Design Creationism” is either dishonest or ignorant of the varied opinions among ID proponents and criticism from the Young Earth crowd, on the grounds it is too sciencey and not bibley.
Either science can answer all our questions about everything or it cannot. Currently we rely upon science to explain the workings of nature. It is limited to the material. Truth in meaning is not given by science, but philosophy and logic. Philosophy is the lens by which we all interpret the meaning of scientific results. That science is limited to materialist explanations does not imply Materialist Philosophy is true. It can lend support to the notion, but make no mistake, gaps in scientific knowledge are filled by speculations based upon philosophical assumptions about unproven macro (metaphysical) nature of reality. If one’s philosophy is theist in nature, God fills the gaps, if not theist, vast time and chance fill the gaps.
It seems we all have faith in something at the root of our individual world views. That’s why I find the sneering contempt of anti-theists so irritating – they generally fail to acknowledge their own ‘blind faith’.
