Replies

I understand the desperation some people feel that they want to introduce ID into the curriculum. I read the whole article as best as I could understand it. It seems to be that ID is more fitting in philosophy than in science. Unfortunately they don't teach metaphysics in grade school or high school. Not that Darwinism is flawless---there is a lot to be desired in it's theory--but it is approached in a scientific (empirical) fashion despite the holes one can poke in it. Parents see their kids getting barraged by an atheist agenda and are fed up. They would really like what their kids are learning at home and in church to be comlimented by what they learn in school. Those of Evangelical persuasion know that "creationsim" per se is never going to happen---so they've come up with ID. Now the atheists want to make ID into some hideous monster--but I agree with the author of the post that is belongs in philosophy. All you ID supporters are getting your knickers in a knot because he used the word DUMB

"I read the whole article as best as I could understand it. It seems to be that ID is more fitting in philosophy than in science."

His argument is quite simple.

Metaphysical naturalism and Global Non Naturalism are both views that guide scientific thinking.

Naturalism views the natural world simply. What you see is what you get.

Non Naturalism claims that the way the world works is not simple when you look closely.

These two views in conflict with one another.

ID smushes these two positions together saying the world is both simple and complex. In doing so they are maintaining two fundamentally inconsistent metaphysical positions under one roof and make the problem go away by positing an unknown and unknowable designer.

ID is not philosophy any more than it is science.

The core of ID is the belief in Bi Substance Dualism.

ID is a belief not an argument because IDers don't construct arguments concerning the Pros and Cons of Evolution, they are Con all the way (pardon the pun.

Since Descartes the only philosophers who argue for Bi Substance Dualism are theologians.

So ID is a theological position not a scientific one. QED