Jan 092007
A great article from the UK supporting ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is “pure religion”. In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur’an, or any religious authority or tradition – only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or “Trojan horse”, just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.
EN&V
Just what “religion” would ID be seeing that it says absolutely nothing about the designer?
IOW ID says nada about who to worship, when to worship, how to worship or why to worship.
ID says nothing about eternal salavation or damnation, although it does have something to say about a pink carnation. (D’oh)
People all too often conflate their inference with reality.
Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard,
Good quote from Justice Powell. I think our friend and new ID proponent, Pixie, would say so too. After all MET and ID is compatible and is a part of science.