Yet another scientist misunderstands religious epistemology. Harvard biology professor emeritus Edward O. Wilson says about intelligent design (via Ektopos):

Unfortunately, no positive evidence exists for such a claim. No scientific theory has been proffered or even imagined to explain the transcription from a supernatural force to organic reality. This absence of the elementary requirements of science is why intelligent design is better taught as religion or science fiction.

But religion doesn’t need “postive evidence” in the way Wilson uses the term. In attacking intelligent design as unscientific, he assumes that so-called scientific evidence ought to have a privileged place in our thinking. He’s right about one thing. Intelligent design isn’t science and thus doesn’t belong in a science class. But Wilson’s claim goes further:

Religious conservatives risk a loss in credibility by signing on to intelligent design in the absence of a testable theory or positive evidence. Research biologists are in the business of uncovering steps for the autonomous origin of complex systems, and they have become very good at it. As the number of unsolved systems dwindles, so will the idea that a supernatural force intervenes in evolution.

Science is a legitimate and fruitful path to knowledge about the world. But it simply isn’t the only one. All Wilson points to is lack of scientific evidence.

The religious personality need not reject anything in science. What religion demands is the recognition that the prophetic encounter with God is also a legitimate and fruitful path to knowledge. This is what I think it means to think religiously or to have faith. I’m willing to debate this point on philosophical grounds but simply noting “the absence of a testable theory or positive evidence” misses the point completely.