Limbo writes:
1) Darwinism is a philosophical materialistic/naturalist view of evolution, one which holds that life is an accident, and devoid of meaning. As such it serves as a philosophical framework for all secular religions.
I think the only way in which Darwinism can be seen even remotely as "philosophical" is as a view that replaces religious explanations for the diversity in biological nature with naturalist ones. It is therefore most tenuous to cast it into the role of "philosophical framework for all secular religions." Darwinism doesn't deal with the question of meaning, it only proposes a mechanism for evolution.
Also, I hold that "secular religion" is a
contradictio in terminis, even if it is a matter of dispute.
Limbo writes:
2) ID is an optional philosophical view of evolution, one which holds that evolution is by design, and hence contains meaning. This "meaning" can then be defined by an individual according to philosophical reasoning or non-secular religion.
Wouldn't that constitute a
redefinition of the meaning? After all, if, as you say, "evolution is by design and
hence contains meaning" {emphasis mine, P.}, then wouldn't that meaning be the meaning intended by the designer? Wouldn't the meaning be somehow inherently fixed in the design?
If the meaning can be defined
a posteriori, then there might as well have been no meaning at all. And that is exactly the position that I hold: there is no inherent meaning in the world at large, but we can define meaning and purpose for our existence ourselves.
Likewise is there no morality in the world save the morality arising from being a human in a human society. This is demonstrated by the fact that different societies have different morals.
Limbo writes:
Ask yourself this, 'Is Humanity more than the sum of its evolved, physical, material parts?'
If you answer no, I submit you are a Darwinist.
Realising that 'evolved' on the one hand, and 'physical' and 'material' on the other, are not necessarily linked, my answer would be 'no'. Certain aspects of humanity, like morality, or language, are not physical, but are nevertheless evolved.
I guess that would make me a Darwinist in your view. I have no problem with that, or it should be that you assign some, in my view, unwarranted attributes to a Darwinist, like 'amoral' perhaps (maybe even '
immoral'), or 'atheist'. (I am an atheist, by the way, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily follow from being a Darwinist.)
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
™ Version 4.2