I might be wrong, but I think it was Christ Follower No Longer but Still Stupid, who made some comments about, since we can’t observe God then He obviously :-) can’t be the answer to "Where did the information come from that made first life possible?”
That might sound like the dumbest thing ever said, but Still Stupid is not alone. I've heard that from many atheists and I think it was Michael Ruse who said that Intelligent Design can’t be considered a scientific concept because “it invokes an unobservable entity.”
It seems that many atheists live under the delusion that science deals only with what the senses can detect. Molecular biologist Fred Grinnell even said, “If something can’t be measured, or counted, or photographed, it can’t be science.”
“Radical Intersubjectivity” 29
Obviously, Still Stupid isn’t alone. But is he correct?
As I’ve stated, Intelligent Design “infers” an Intelligent Agent as being responsible for the digital information that we find in DNA. When atheists read that they scoff as though inferring a past unobservable cause from present evidence is a totally foreign concept. Not!
. Theories of chemical evolution refer to events that took place millions if not billions of years ago. No one saw them then and certainly no one sees them now.
. Biologists of the Darwinian school refer to creative processes too slow to see and too fast to be found in the fossil record. Doubt or even question this unobservable “process” and feel the wrath of this self-righteous and insecure group.
. The tree of life “contains” many transitional forms that are not and have not been observed by anyone. Yet they are affirmed as a given to explain what we observe as true today.
How is this different from inferring an Intelligent Agent that is the ONLY known explanation for the specified complexity we observe today? Neither the working of past chemical evolution nor the past working of an Intelligent Agent are observable.
Christians can accept that both areas of evidence are possible. Atheists, who have a priori restricted themselves to a very unrealistic and narrow band of acceptable evidence can accept only one possibility. Neither Intelligent Design nor any natural theory of origins, certainly not the ones I’ve talked about in this series are observable and therefore neither qualifies as a potential answer according to Still Stupid.
In reality science often refers to the unobservable to explain the events we observe. If atheists want to use “unobservable” as a criteria for acceptability re: explanations, They're going to refute their own theories. Physical forces, gravitational fields, biomolecular structures, and sub atomic particles - none of these are observable entities but they are inferred from observable evidence.
As you go through life, you'll find that those who hold to a double standard are always driven by a single agenda.