The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID

First let us ask. What is Darwinism? Talk origins, has a nice little article on it here. Darwinism is not prevalent in scientific thought these days, unless you conflate Darwinism with neo-Darwinism which I suspect you do. Darwinism proposed gemmules and Lamarck like inheritance which has been thrown out.Is it a naturalist view of evolution? Well, neo-Darwinism is embraced by naturalists/materialists, but neo-Darwinism is also embraced by supernaturalists. So it is not a view that is exclusively naturalist or supernaturalist. Naturalism could be said to hold that view. Accident is a funny word though, since it implies that there was someone who intended for something to happen, but something else happened 'accidentally'. So let's use the word 'chance'. Neo-Darwinism says nothing about life being anything. Neo-darwinism holds that the diversity of life can be explained through random mutations coupled with natural selection. Not true at all, Darwism, nor naturalism explicitly says that life has no meaning. Here is a naturalistic belief system that explicitly accepts Darwinism, and finds meaning of life: Pantheism. Your old friends, the religious secular humanists also manage to find meaning in life. Darwinism is not and cannot be a philisophical framework, it is incapable of being that. Ontological naturalism is the philosophical framework upon which secular religions use. Since neo-Darwinism does not evoke supernatural entities to explain things, secular religions accept it as compatable with their belief.So the philosophical point number one should read:

quote:

---

1) neo-Darwinism is the view of evolution that ontological naturalists use. It is also the view many theistic philosopers take, and IDers can even accept neo-Darwinism. It holds that the diversity of life is the result of random mutations of DNA natural selection. Like other sciences it makes no comment on the meaning of life.

---

You do realize that ID and neo-Darwinism aren't mutually exclusive?

---

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

Is it me or has this thread gone from "The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID" onto "Why won't anyone listen to the IDists!!??"Incidentally, I am in this camp: I really wish there was something in ID, I've really given it a try, it would be utterly great if it had some actual substance. However, they just seem to have rhetoric and mathemagics. If they have anything more than that, they've failed to present it.What are the philosophical implications of teaching our kids something on that basis?

Why not stop trying to explain why ID has not been accepted by mainstream science, stop trying to convince us that ID scientists are subject to a conspiracy of evilutionists. How about we start discussing The philosophical implications of both sides, I was quite interested in the topic. In the thread that spawned this, nihilism was being discussed and it was tantalizingly interesting.I can understand that you don't want to talk about it anymore, and that's fine, its just a shame that no time was dedicated to talking about it in the first place. What I would like to know is, what do you think the philosophical implications are for Darwinism or ID? I don't think I've seen it discussed at length.Thanks.