Does sciences own self-definition exclude certain theories from investigation?
There is only one thing stopping the NAS from supporting a seemingly better course for science–its definition of science itself. The NAS defines science as a search for purely natural explanations for all phenomena. Under this definition, science is bound to oppose any theory of intelligent design, no matter how compelling the evidence. That is fine, but the NAS should admit that this definition is a philosophic choice, and a statement of faith that natural explanations indeed exist for all things, and indeed are true. In making this choice, the NAS prevents science from making “progress in science [which] consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.” Is science living up to its truth-discovering claims? What can be done? If the place of science is truly to pursue better explanations of the world through observation and experiment, then perhaps science ought to discard its original self-definition and follow where the evidence leads. It seems
