The chance that science will advance mankind to the stars: 100%
The chance that religion will advance us to the stars: 0%
ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.
Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...
ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.
Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...
If God is real, science is nothing but a mechanism which can do nothing but conform to God’s rules.