Posts by BK

UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

I Believe in One Fewer God than You Do

That's a common statement by skeptics who oppose the work of thinking.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-believe-in-one-fewer-god-than-you-do.html

The confusion continues

In all seriousness, ID is not a religion. It is not neo-creationism. It is built on the idea that is already used in archaeology, geology and the SETI project that says that somethings due to their attributes carry with them the appearance of design. Design, for example, can be seen in the difference between a stone arch and the St. Louis Arch. If we didn't know it had been constructed, how would we be able to determine one is designed and one isn't? What about the pyramids? How do we know that they are designed as opposed to natural structures? We know because we have the ability to examine something and see the earmarks of design.

ID builds on that premise that we can see when something is designed and takes it into other areas. The problem is that when it comes to bringing those principles into the area of biology, ardent evolutionists shiver and object. Why is that? It seems to me that if this is so blatantly wrong, the evolutionists should simply demonstrate that it is erroneous and be done with it. Of course, they haven't and they can't.

Moreover, it is not religion. It makes no claims to be able to identify the designer. It doesn't claim the designer is God. It may be that the designer is some alien life form. It may be that the designer is some unknown intelligent force. Perhaps it is Gaia (which seems to be an acceptable religion among those of a scientific bent). To claim that it is "religion" merely because it points out that observations of nature reveal that something intelligent has been involved in design is simply ridiculous.

Really, before attacking ID as non-science, it would be helpful to actually understand it. The people who attack it use language that demonstrates that they don't have a clue.

Oh, and I should add that most of the arguments on this page mischaracterize religion. One that I thought kind of summed up religion was by Jim and read:

"Religion - You are told what to believe and also told that you must not, under any circumstances, question what you have been told.

Science - You are told what to believe but you are allowed, and sometimes actively encouraged, to question those beliefs at any/every opportunity."

In fact, Christianity, understood correctly, applauds those who question what they have been told. Those who teach that Christianity is some type of leap to blind faith ascribe to a type of Christianity that is decidedly unbiblical. In contrast, at least in the area of evolution, science is apparently the place where you are told what to believe and also told that you must not, under any circumstances, question what you have been told. After all, ID raises questions about evolutionary theory, and apparently you can't raise those questions!