Dillinger
New
Are the advocates in the intelligent design movement (an offshoot of creation science) promoting science or pseudoscience? Also, are the advocates believers or proponents? (I have been informed by the powers that be on this forum that a believer is someone who accepts a belief strictly on faith - faith as the atheist defines the term, namely belief without evidence. A proponent is someone who believes the evidence justifies his or her belief.)
Here are some things to consider:
The ID movement is not necessarily against evolution per se. It's just against atheistic and materialistic evolution.
Phillip E. Johnson (who is considered the father of the ID movement) made the following argument in his book entitled "Darwin on Trail."
Also, consider the fact that there are some in the parapsychology community who believe that evolution is influenced by a higher consciousness (a.k.a. God). As such, these individuals might qualify as advocates of intelligent design.
In fact, there are even some opponents (e.g. Kenneth R. Miller) of ID who might unwittingly qualify as advocates of ID.
Here are some things to consider:
The ID movement is not necessarily against evolution per se. It's just against atheistic and materialistic evolution.
The overall goal of the intelligent design movement is to overthrow materialism and atheism. Its proponents believe that society has suffered "devastating" cultural consequences from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of the decay into materialism because it seeks only natural explanations, and is therefore atheistic. (source: Wikipedia: Intelligent design movement)
Phillip E. Johnson (who is considered the father of the ID movement) made the following argument in his book entitled "Darwin on Trail."
- "Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it is explicitly or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution - meaning evolution which is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. pg. 4
- Similarly, "creation" contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation, rather than creation by progressive development. pg. 4
(source: "Darwin on Trail" by Phillip E. Johnson)
Also, consider the fact that there are some in the parapsychology community who believe that evolution is influenced by a higher consciousness (a.k.a. God). As such, these individuals might qualify as advocates of intelligent design.
For example, psi could contribute to evolution by briefly influencing random processes to enhance diversity, without specifically guiding evolution or having sustained effects. Some type of higher consciousness may influence or control psi effects. (source: "The Capricious, Actively Evasive, Unsustainable Nature of Psi: A Summary and Hypotheses" by J.E. Kennedy)
In fact, there are even some opponents (e.g. Kenneth R. Miller) of ID who might unwittingly qualify as advocates of ID.
"The only alternative to what [the critics of evolution] describe as randomness would be a nonrandom universe of clockwork mechanisms that would also rule out active intervention by any supreme Deity. Caught between these two alternatives, they fail to see the one more consistent with their religious beliefs is actually the mainstream scientific view linking evolution with quantum reality of the physical sciences." (source: pg. 213 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)
"Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay." (source: pg. 241 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)
Last edited: