Your arguements are philosophical and certainly not scientific. Leave science to the experts so you don't hurt your head. Your own arguments are philosophical in nature and not scientific. Design, as your quote says, is an arguement. It is not science. The historical figures cited by Meyer viewed it as philosophy. But only you, and like minded anti-science theocrats, make such an absurd connection.
Philosophy should not exist in the ‘current’ view of evolution? Hmmm… How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy? Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed?
Creationsist quote mining is so disengenuous. Frankly, science is a subset of philosophy, but its the one that has advanced human knowledge by actually testing ideas, rather than simply arguing about them. So frankly, no, philosophy has no part in a scientific discussion because you are going outside the scope of science. Evolution just describes the way things happened with repect to changes in populations of organisms. If you want to go outside the paradyms of science go ahead, but then it isn't science. And arguing from that perspective simply shows a clearly luddite, anti-science perspective. If you want to live in a cave, I won't stop you.
Yet quote mining from the ACLU is totally acceptable according to ‘your’ philosophy and you accept this as ‘fact‘ due to a ‘quote mining’ ruling?
Calling me a ‘luddite’ and accusing me of living in a cave while conversing on the internet and knowing nothing about me is beyond sad. You are avoiding questions and shooting in the dark at way too many unseen targets in the hope of hitting a response you desire.
Let’s try this again - How do you separate Social-Darwinism from evolution and philosophy? Are leading critics of id such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker, Myers, et al. merely cranks that should be exposed.?