Replies

And yet, that is Intelligent Design in one sentence.

That is your perception, Oztrich Boy; and out of respect for you I will not dispute it here. All I ask is that you return the favor, and train a like analysis on the doings of your side of the argument.

Otherwise, I might suspect that you are trying to change the subject I raised. I would consider that a dodge, to be aided and abetted by further subterfuge and misdirection.... FWIW.

Thanks so much for writing!

Thank you for the ping to your discussion with Oztrich Boy!

betty boop: But if he stuffs them into his science, then we have to recognize that he's not doing science; he's doing theology under cover of science.

Oztrich boy: And yet, that is Intelligent Design in one sentence.

To be clear, Intelligent Design does not characterize the designer other than it being intelligent. The "designer" could be God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.), aliens (panspermia, exobiology, etc.) or collective consciousness (Eastern mysticism, etc.) ID does not speak to doctrine at all.

Atheism, OTOH, is a "doctrine" in that it takes a position on God (as not-existing) and embraces ideology, philosophy and politics based on the notion that "all that there is" is that which physically exists in space/time. (corporeal, spatial, temporal)

If Intelligent Design were doing theology under the color of science, it would have a doctrine. Scientists who "evangelize" for atheism under the color of science [Lewontin, Pinker, Mayr, etc.] do have a doctrine.