Joined: Aug. 2005
I was going to stay out of this and just let it be about biology, but since you answered...
|Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,18:14)|
|Regarding ID and religion, the question of whether or not proponents of a theory/position can (i) leverage the theory for non scientific purposes and (ii) simultaneously maintain that the theory itself is scientific, seems straightforward enough. Why would people want to do that? Again, this seems pretty obvious. It happens with a wide variety of theories (evolution comes to mind as an example). I'm more interested in the evidences *for* the theory rather than what metaphysics certain people want to conclude *from* the theory.|
It's not a question of whether or not one can leverage a theory for non scientific purposes. Anyone can erroneously say that evolution supports atheism or any notion of theism they care to like. That's not what is at issue. What is at issue is a policy paper by the DI that pretty explicitly states their objective of replacing science with god.
From the wedge document as a goal:
|To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.|
Mr. Hunter, you are a fellow of the DI, surely you know what their position is. Do you reject that position? Do you hold that ID is purely scientific? If so, why does the DI push so hard for theistic understandings?
Edit: By the way, what are these evidences for the theory that you brought up?