Wednesday, February 8, 2012

God and Intelligent Design (ID)

Omega watch engine

Wikipedia describes a rather unintelligent business starting the story with the introductory sentence  "This article is about intelligent design as promulgated by the Discovery Institute."

Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, and believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state. The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement". They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
wikipedia


Two problems
This is the political setting for one particular usage of the term Intelligent design (ID) in the USA and with influence on events also elsewhere in the world.

Problem #1
 "The leading proponents of intelligent design ...believe the designer to be the Christian God."
The term "Christian God" as used in this context is a misnomer.

The term "Jewish God" would also be a misnomer.

The term "Moslem God" would also be a misnomer.

Historically speaking, Christianity is one branch of the rich and varied Judaism that existed during the Herodian period.

The Jews and Gojim who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised in Torah, Prophets and Writings believe in the God of Israel.

The Jews who do not believe that Jesus is Christ but believe in God also believe in the God of Israel.

Moslems believe in the God of Abraham.

God of Israel is Biblical and correct.


Problem #2
...certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection...

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".

The article implies that "intelligent cause" or "existence of God" are religious concepts and "undirected process such as natural selection" is science.

I am sorry, but this common implication not true. Both views are "religious" and "philosophical" and not in the realm of natural sciences.

Natural sciences are not a pure atheistic Greek temple into which religious people want to bring their obscure and unfounded faith based claims. 

Atheists may use natural sciences to support their argumentation that there is no purpose and no design.

Religious people may use natural sciences to support their argumentation that look, obviously there must be a God.

Scientists are looking for the truth.

And to be honest, is it not true that every step forward in natural sciences opens up more questions about the Universe than it answers?

No comments:

Post a Comment