Quote:
|
Quote by: northtexan OK, so ID isn't science, nor compatible with science, but is it religion? I would argue that a 'teleological perspective' that posits and explanation (intelligent designer) and then states that that explanation may not be further explored -- that approach is a religion. No, it isn't an honest religion -- it is a religion that tries to hide its deity. And this is revealed further by the many occasions in which the major gurus of ID have stated in religious venues that ID's purpose is indeed religious.
So, yes, ID is religion -- but it is a dishonest, fraudulent one. |
Absolute nonsense. Are you suggesting that mainstream scientists don't employ Design-type thinking when doing research? Do you dispute this observation by Michael Ruse:
Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that this kind
of design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms
the parts at least -- as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking teleological thinking is
appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were
manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work.
Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)