My post 111 explores the difference between methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism and political activism of atheists. The three often are wrongfully conflated in these debates - and by certain "movers and shakers" in the academia, e.g. Lewontin, Singer and Dawkins.
Post 920 was meant to be humorous - forcing the imaginary students to acknowledge ideological prejudice and sort themselves out:
But that is not the objective of the intelligent design movement. The objective of the movement is to remove the presupposition of naturalism in scientific investigations. Go where the evidence leads without unwarranted axioms and postulates like physicists and mathematicians do.
More importantly, the intelligent design hypothesis needs to be understood separately from the intelligent design movement. (more in my post 998) Conflating them results in the same error as conflating methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
If any of you take this to mean the metaphysically natural science of biology, you are in the wrong room please go to the South wing, and ask for professor Dawkins laboratory, the course name is "atheism 101"
Dawkins' quote "Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions" sounds more to me like methodological naturalism.
If any of you reject methodological naturalism as a presupposition in science, then please proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behes laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101"
And to be fair to the previous example, you might want to say "theology 101."