malf
Member
It seems disingenuous to postulate other realities and then blame "science" (designed for exploring our physical reality) for not being able to explore and test them.What's scientifically illegitimate about asking the question whether intelligence is involved in evolution? Only this: if you define science as a priori excluding such a possibility, then perforce it's illegitimate.
A scientific question is any question that can be investigated using reason, and has some empirical referent. This applies very widely, even to subjects like historical research or whether it was next door's dog that crapped on my lawn two days ago. Can it be investigated using reason whether what appears as designed in nature actually is designed? Certainly. We have empirical referents, like cells and DNA and proteins, and we can use reason to determine the likelihood of their arising as as result of RM + NS given the hypothesised way that those two principles are supposed to work.
We can argue about whether we believe that resulting data that indicates that RM + NS are insufficient is correct, but I don't think we can argue that the very question is unscientific. Unless, that is, we're ideologues who want, a priori, to rig the goalposts so that certain questions are inherently illegitimate. How fortunate that on this forum there are no such people, eh? ;)