UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 4 to Talk Back 86
ID is not Science

by: JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Rob:

I see why you want to attack that definition of science. Right at the top of the page you quoted from it says:

The judge's December 20th ruling in the Intelligent Design trial, Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District, is a fascinating read that lays bare a case of shrewd marketing:  the recasting of a religious belief as science.  Below are excerpts from the memorandum opinion – a summary of the case written by the judge – that includes evidence that ID is a carefully constructed cover for the religious idea of creationism, evidence and arguments that imply that ID is not a form of science, and Judge E. Jones's clear-cut conclusions and ruling.   

Yes - ID is not science. It is religion. And that's the entire thrust of the article from which you chose to quote.

You attack that definition and try to turn science into something it is not. Science is about discovery of natural causes. That is not because of a preconception that natural causes are the underpinning of everything, but because science is the study of the natural, not the supernatural.

ID is about the supernatural. It is a religious viewpoint.

You are fully entitled to your religious views. But they are not science. Don't kid yourself they are. And in your original article and two follow-up items, you have been promoting a religious view, not a scientific view. ID has nothing to do with science, except for its followers practice of selectively quoting scientific findings and deliberately misinterpreting them.

As to your uninformed criticism of "We don't know and we don't care," I suggest you actually look at some of the discussions on this site to discover the context. That's why there's a highlighted section on the main page called Frequently Asked Questions.

NEXT