Intelligent Design Is Not Religion
There seem to be a feeling, especially amongst proponents of Darwinian evolution, that anything that intelligent design is religion is disguise. Particularly the Christian religion. So, what often ends up happening is that rather than addressing the objection of ID scientists the scientific community, and the mainstream media, attacks them for pushing religion into the schools. The blog "Evolution Nesw & Views" talks about it here:
While intelligent design, by its very nature, infers the existance of some sort of Designer it does not attempt to say who this Designer is. They leave that up to religion and philosophy. On the opposite side of this coin you have Darwinian evolution. A system that cannot allow for the existanc of a creator. If subscribe to Darwinism then you are an athiest. If you subscribe to ID then you're, at the very least, an agnostic. Athism and agnosticism are on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum and compete for the hearts and minds of civilization.
When Darwinism becomes the only PC explaination for existance we're no longer dealing with science. And in a secular society anything that criticizes Darwinism is instantly suspect because of the theological implications of that criticism. Secularists don't want there to be a Creator because then they no longer are the final voice in what is moral. So then they must attack ID for being a tool to force a theological agenda because they have no other recourse. ID science is firm and raises a whole slew of very difficult questions for Darwinists to answer. Questions they don't want to answer because they've become quite comfortable being masters of the universe.
Finally, just to let you know, the Discovery Institute has no position, that I've seen, on the agenda of Darwinists when it comes to the philosophical/theological implications of their stance. They've, wisely, stayed silent on the issue. The same cannot be said of their detractors who are quick to scream about the 1st Amendment rather than simply looking at the science.
More and more we’re seeing ridiculous charges from Darwinists that CSC scientists, and scientists skeptical of Darwinism in general, are religious zealots and right-wingers with theocratic leanings. It reminded me of Giuseppe Sermonti’s comment about Darwinism being the only politically correct science. So, now you have dogmatic Darwinists seeking to discredit anyone who speaks out against Darwinism in order to protect a politically correct scientific viewpoint.
While intelligent design, by its very nature, infers the existance of some sort of Designer it does not attempt to say who this Designer is. They leave that up to religion and philosophy. On the opposite side of this coin you have Darwinian evolution. A system that cannot allow for the existanc of a creator. If subscribe to Darwinism then you are an athiest. If you subscribe to ID then you're, at the very least, an agnostic. Athism and agnosticism are on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum and compete for the hearts and minds of civilization.
When Darwinism becomes the only PC explaination for existance we're no longer dealing with science. And in a secular society anything that criticizes Darwinism is instantly suspect because of the theological implications of that criticism. Secularists don't want there to be a Creator because then they no longer are the final voice in what is moral. So then they must attack ID for being a tool to force a theological agenda because they have no other recourse. ID science is firm and raises a whole slew of very difficult questions for Darwinists to answer. Questions they don't want to answer because they've become quite comfortable being masters of the universe.
Finally, just to let you know, the Discovery Institute has no position, that I've seen, on the agenda of Darwinists when it comes to the philosophical/theological implications of their stance. They've, wisely, stayed silent on the issue. The same cannot be said of their detractors who are quick to scream about the 1st Amendment rather than simply looking at the science.
