Dawn McGregor, Buderim

As to Johnson, he is quite right. The real issue is not really science. “It’s about religion and philosophy.” It’s about worldviews. And this ties into your second set of queries. The quotes I provided say just what they appear to say. These guys see Darwinism as a rival worldview, as a complete take on life and its questions. Many have made it clear that they don’t like Christianity, and they want to see evolutionary secular humanism as the replacement worldview.

These are always worldview battles. They are overarching ways of looking at the world, of life, of meaning, of purpose, and so on. You cannot read someone like Dawkins without seeing that this is exactly the case. He and his ilk see their secular Darwinism as a religious system, one that accounts for every question in life.

The issue is not really the science. We all have the same scientific data to deal with. It is a question of how one interprets the data. And that is a product of the worldview one holds, of the a priori philosophical beliefs one holds to, of the presuppositions and pre-existing paradigms one hangs on to. One’s religion, in other words.

Everyone has a worldview which seeks to make sense of life, and deal with why we are here and where we are going. Many people simply choose philosophical naturalism as their worldview, and seek to use Darwinism to justify it.

I suggest that if you are serious about all these issues, you read the new book by David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion (Crown Forum, 2008). He is neither a Christian nor a creationist, but he rips through the religious nature of secular humanism, and demolished the way atheists are seeking to hide behind science and Darwin to push their worldview.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I do not understand how scientific evidence can lead to a supernatural explanations. Can you give me an example? I would have thought scientific evidence would be cause to dismiss a supernatural explanation.

Ben Green

You can find the article (not sure if it an extract or the full thing) here

http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html

I have also been thinking and reading about the quotes you posted above. When these authors speak of evolution being a form of religion I have no idea what definition of religion they are using. I have consulted my usual dictionary source and cannot find a definition that would suite.

Here is a list from one at http://dictionary.com

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one’s errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

In this list above maybe description 3 or 6?? but then who practices evolution and evolution does not speak of ethics? For me, it does not make any sense. Now if we were to change the meaning of the world religion to accommodate something like evolution then does this infer that other sciences are also included. What of mathematics or astronomy? Would these also be religious in nature? The danger here is that when people try to expand the meaning of a word it has the possibility of loosing its original meaning. We can use words to form synergies but I am not sure that is what is being done in this case. We also have the same problem with certain people in society trying to expand the definition of the word marriage. So what of the quotes above? I think they are slightly mischievous and really do not help in our understanding. I am not sure what the authors intentions were?? It would make more sense if the word was used in the context of being an adverb but as a noun it is all but meaningless to me in this context.

Ben Green

Anne Morrow

“I do not understand why proponents of ID see it as a science when at its heart it is based on the supernatural. Science by it’s own definition does not allow for such explanations.”

If the scientific evidence leads to a supernatural answer, do we discount it? Just because ID is based on the supernatural it doesn’t mean it should be thrown to the bottom of the barrel of scientific explanations. The evidence against evolution is extensive. I think if the majority of anti-IDers would get rid of their athiestic mindsets and look at the evidence with a bit of common sense, they might find a some purpose in their existence.

Amanda Horn

Now this is interesting. Less than three weeks ago you sheepishly admitted that you had not so much as even read one book by an ID author, thus confirming your ignorance of the subject. Now all of a sudden you are making yourself out to be some kind of an authority on it all. So what brought about this miraculous (oops, sorry – there are no miracles), this amazing transformation?

Did you read all the ID books you could find? Or just visit a few more of your fav atheist websites, making you now feel once again qualified to enter the fray. But as I said, this is nothing but intellectual laziness, if not intellectual dishonesty.

And just who has discredited arguments from design, other than those who have an a priori commitment to naturalism? Are you now claiming to be a learned philosopher as well as an expert in ID? I better not ask how many tomes on philosophy you have digested in the past 20 days.

And of course your atheistic scientific buddies are dealing in non-scientific areas (the supernatural) all the time when they leave the narrow limits of actual science. Do you roundly criticise Dawkins et. al. for doing this Sammy? Somehow I don’t think so. This is all just more silly reductionistic scientism creeping out again.

Your final charge is a bit too silly to take very seriously. You dismiss ID because there might be some “religious motivation” lurking around somewhere. Ghastly! That puts IDers on a par with axe murderers and child rapists obviously. How could they be so awful?!

Come to think of it, you just might be right. Religious motivation obviously discredits anyone from saying anything about science. Thank you for correcting us on that. Now we know never to bother listening to Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Mendal, Pasteur, Kelvin, Clerk-Maxwell, Collins, Lennox and so many others again. They are of course unqualified to engage in scientific discourse, with all their nasty religious motivations. Thanks for rescuing us from this dastardly error.

But you at least redeem yourself with a bit of gravitas in your last paragraph, warranting, finally, a serious reply. The most important question I can ask you here is this: are you really open to the evidence, or do you just think you are, and have instead already made up your mind?

The evidence is all around us, for those who are genuinely open to it. So you must be honest with yourself here: are you really willing to following the evidence wherever it will lead, as Antony Flew and millions of others have, or are you too much in bondage to the false gods of materialism and scientism?

God rewards the diligent seeker, not the casual enquirer. Or as Jesus put it, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened. Those who truly seek will find, but those who are just playing mind games will not. I hope and pray that you ask yourself these questions, looking deep within for the genuine answers.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch