Is our inability to track down such a point reason enough to doubt its existence? If no such gulf exists, it is rather difficult to ascribe to nature a finite ability to produce complexity.
No, it's not, you're right. As I was saying about the definition of science: though maybe we haven't yet come across a precise definition that gives us a clean line between what is and isn't science, it doesn't mean there
is no standard by which to define something as science or not science. We don't yet know of a limit of complexity beyond which only intelligent design is a feasible explanation, but that doesn't mean there
is no such limit.
I hope you can't fault me for the skepticism, though. In a universe so close to infinite that the distinction is perfunctory, how can someone demand that a certain specific arrangement of matter and circumstances not be a possible permutation of that near-infinite arrangement of matter and circumstances? I suppose I'm still doubtful, but not so much that learning I'd been wrong would inspire any discontent. It'd probably inspire wonder and curiosity, actually. =P
This is disappointingly dogmatic-sounding, Profesco. As per the soundness of naturalistic explanations...perhaps a parallel is in order. If you had asked Aristotle why he considered propositions that called for a non-stationary Earth untenable, he'd likely have told you "If the earth moved, it would tear itself apart!" His audience had no desire or reason to believe differently, and thus were easily convinced. Explanations like these are only satisfying if we can appreciate their providing succour to our view of things.
Was it? I'm sorry. It's not as though I'm denying the possibility, though. Take your Aristotle example. In his time, his logic satisfied people because there was no better understanding on the horizon yet. Our understanding changes as we learn more. If we learn enough to point to an intelligent designer as more likely than naturalism, our understanding will once again change. You need more than an idea, though. An intelligent designer is just an idea at the moment; maybe a deity or an advanced alien civilization, it doesn't matter. But that's part of our skepticism - there's so little grounds for changing our understanding to reflect intelligent design that it is no more than a fanciful distraction at the moment*. Things may certainly change, you can count on that. But until they do, what is most likely will remain most likely.
Incidentally, until there are more grounds, or better supported grounds, or something along those lines, ID will be a fanciful distraction instead of a science. I'm sure lots of cool science has begun as a fanciful distraction, so that again doesn't discount the possibility, but it's not substantive enough to be a science based on what we know right now. Perhaps a good place to start would be having enough knowledge or theoretic material to decide whether the intelligent designer is supernatural or merely natural but incredibly advanced.
No, the lesson I'm attempting to impart is that we heartily gobble up explanations that fit with our worldview with less regard for their scientific viability and more for their philosophical underpinnings.
Isn't one of the biggest roadblocks to accepting ID its lack of scientific viability? (That's why we're discussing whether it has any, right?)
Then I was going to say something flowery about how philosophical exploration can provide routes toward understanding that are different than, but might be supplemental to, the routes science takes... but then I thought that with "underpinnings" you meant we approve of a philosophy for the way in which it holds up our existing explanations, which would make anything I had to say about exploratory philosophy moot. *shrug*
