Replies

I guess my real question is, if ID is science, why do we get accused of religion bashing when we ridicule it?

Scientist ridicule each other's ideas on a regular basis. Does religion really want to throw it's hat into a ring where ideas are subject to constant attempts at disproof?

If that ridicule sticks to the facts being discussed, you are right, there should be no discussion of religion brought into it. In this case the problem lies with those defending ID. Another problem occurs when the ridicule ignores the scientific argument and dismisses ID as a disingenuous ploy to impose religion on the public. In the latter case, it is the critics of ID who have brought the issue of religion into the debate.

ID arrives at the classical "Argument From Design" position from two basic starting points. One is that application of the commonly accepted principles of detecting design used in disciplines mentioned in the article. Those principles are applied to nature to infer the presence of design. The second approach is the use of probability analysis and modeling to postulate the extreme unlikelihood of the universe as we know it coming about by chance. This, of course, is a gross oversimplification, but it sums up the major argument. If ID's critics would stick to refuting the arguments being made without conjuring up a religious "bogeyman", then ID's proponents should also steer clear of religious arguments.