Just wanted to ask the opinions of evolutionists here. Obviously evolutionists generally believe the ID movement is creationism, however I was just wondering, can you appreciate that there is the classic argument of ID, since Paley, which didn't really refer to creation or Christianity, but is basically the argument of recognising design?
Did Paley say "This is science and should be taught in science class?"
Most folk understand Paley as doing natural theology, and I guess that's a kind of philosophy. Most science people have no objection to talk of ID as part of philosophy. It's the claim that it is science that is at issue.
And then, suppose that you conclude that nature is a product of design. Shouldn't you then consider that evolution might be a system for carrying out such design?
What characterizes the ID movement, is that it is light on actual science and heavy on polemics against evolution.
If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity)
Life has the elements of design
Therefore life is designed.
But wouldn't you first have to establish (a) that there are elements of design, and (b) what those elements are? Shouldn't this require a scientific research program, and not be merely a matter of assertion? Wouldn't you need to develop a scientific consensus on these questions, before you could expect to use them?
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
™ Version 4.2
