>>>Indeed. Why would a Darwinist become a doctor? If you're ill or weak, that's just because you are genetically inferior! Nobody should bother to help you; instead, we should just let natural selection take over. Survival of the fittest, and all that.
Why would a IDer become a doctor? If you're ill or weak, that's just because that was the will of the designer! Nobody should bother to help you; instead, we should just follow the designers plan. He/she/it is the intelligent one, and all that.
I suppose you think that was rather intelligent. Try again.
Exactly. I am one that thinks that ID is a legitimate hypothesis, and "scientific," refutable. But I do not see what is the moral or ethical implication of ID being true, or not true. Without revelation - without some imposition of a Truth beyond the frame of the picture (Wittgenstein, etc.) - I do not see how any personal moral code is necessary. Darwin or Dembski being correct does not mean anything in terms of what should be individual decisions. Does anyone have a logical challenge to this?