Is Intelligent Design Science - My perspective?

Is Intelligent Design Science - My perspective?

Then supposedly learned men within the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement start defining their political policies with an attack on the basic principle of science – the fact that – ‘science does not comment on the supernatural’ or as Jay Richards would out it that so-called ‘methodological naturalism’. Then it is on to that ‘purposeless causes when exploring nature’, well one should first define ‘purposeless’, since if something does not, just by doing that something because it can, does in fact have purpose. As with most enquires within the ID Movement, an applied and assumed assigning of purpose or design is given from the position of authority – the infamous Intelligent Designer (IDer). That Intelligent Agency (IA) is by definition – supernatural, especially when used outside the defined principles of science and that usage of IA is an all encompassing answer to everything of and in the universe.

          The persuasiveness of the argument that ‘methodological naturalism’ is used as the backbone within science, is not an issue, it is simply a fact, well for those who practice valid science that is. And no, the universe is under no obligation to conform to anyone’s definition, especially those religious political scientists, at the Discovery Institute. But more to the point, the universe does not have a viewpoint of any type and it is mankind’s interpretation of the universe, which creates the obligation of ‘methodological naturalism’ to be used as a measuring tape of our understanding of the universe and everything in it. There is a design like structure within all of nature because nature follows all of the laws of scientific theory, which are of course an unconsciously effects the actions of nature, but without a plan or perceived outcome.

          Religion is a word that is built on blind faith, it is a word that simply answers everything, never fully, correctly or based on evidence, but it is more of a filler concept or word grouping, that fill a gap in mankind’s knowledge or understanding. As within science, specific meanings are ascribed to give words, for an understanding between all scientists of all scientific disciplines – a standard vocabulary within scientific methodology that is to be followed and maintained.

          Now, if you have a lawyer by the name of Philip Johnson, who has come along after becoming a born-again Christian, – which has absolutely nothing to do with his new found interest in the sciences – well strictly according to him, of course; has come forward with an idea of how to get Creationism back into the Science classroom. Mr. Johnson is to use his legal background and expertise change and redefine some wording or in such cases, simply removing whole words and their definitions. The simplest examples of legal trickery used commonly in his old profession, would be say the definition of ‘person’ and ‘child’. These two words are very common and one’s understanding would be very clear, but not in the legal profession because within the legal world – specific and altered definitions have been given. The question one should be asking is why would there be a need to legally define both ‘person’ and ‘child’, if everyone already would know their definition. Simply put, by redefining these words one changes the scope of their impact. A words ‘person’ and ‘child’ are legally defined and represent both real and fictitious concepts in law. The point I wish to purvey is that within both law and science, words are given specific meanings, in order to maintain an orderly and comprehensive dialogue between fellow scientists or fellow lawyers.

          The defining moments the ID Movement becomes a failing political concept, is when its starting point is within the realms of the supernatural, since ‘science does not comment on the supernatural’. It is precisely at that point, where the ID Movement and Science part company, and ID falls under various headings, such as religion, philosophy, politics, wishful wanting, falsehood, etc. Secondly, when the ID Movement tries to redefine ‘scientific methodology’ because it does not allow the supernatural, but only incorporates ‘methodological naturalism’, within its framework and study. Thirdly, when the ID Movement gets to have full reign over the definition of ‘best’ and also gets to judge exactly what the Movement decides what that ‘best’ represents within the universe – can only be described as taking place in a pipe-dream. Fourthly, the ID Movement is under a self-delusion that the Sciences do not recognize design in nature, which is a falsehood, but more to the point and correctly – science does not recognize the need to add a fictitious IDer or other sky fairies – into scientific theories. Science observes various designs, patterns, configurations, repetitions, structures, re-occurring themes etc., all of which help science understand the natural world around us. Finally, and more as a matter of fact issue, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton may have been spiritual as they ventured into the Sciences, with a religious world viewpoint, but their science prevailed when and only when it veered away from the supernatural.