Jan 092007

A great article from the UK supporting ID.

Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford and sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science,

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

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,

“(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.”

15 years ago

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.