The Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

"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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.