I don't necessarily think ID should automatically be labeled as Religious, maybe philosophical or ideological. Many have claimed to believe in ID, but yet to define the designer. Religion attaches ID to a specific designer, depending on the religion, but for purposes of this thread I guess ID is mostly views as religion/faith based.
The hard part is to determine a way to confirm ideology, I think that is what science has a problem with, where's the framework, it's a little hocus pocus. Can someone build a case for ID by means of developing models using laws of Entropy and probability? As i mentioner in blog, I think it's funny how the same 'intelligent' people who think gambling/lottery is dumb because of the odds, “might as well throw money away, stupid tax”, deny or discredit any possibility of intelligent design. Now that I think about it, I think certain parts of evolution theory could be considered ideology.
Quote:
|
all ID says is that at some point,an unknown force performed an unknown action that resulted in things being the way they are now.
|
Isn't that what black holes, dark matter and the BIG BANG are; undefined forces.
Why is it that science seems to view ID as idiocracy, and strive to push for more 'scientific' evolutionary teaching and remove any mention to ID, as it is religion? Is it a matter of ID, or a matter of specific religion?
From blog
Quote:
Science views Galileo’s conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion..... Galileo was a man of faith as well as science and believed Copernican theory did not conflict with Scripture..... My argument is, beware of holding to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error.
It is a mistake either to classify scientific theories as Biblical and non-Biblical, or to believe that the proof of God’s existence will be found in the failure of science to explain something.......the ability for science to explain something does not disprove ID and/or God's existence.
|
Don't know Ben Stein's full position, as I just recently heard about it, but I did hear on an interview that he is not claiming to be right, just wants all the facts, theories, and ideas to all be equally represented. When certain things are not allowed to be discussed, one must question the agenda, such as the case with the BBC and the Global Warming Activist demanding a revised story.