Tom Gilson from Thinking Christian has recently written a review on “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design”by Bradley Monton. While it served its purpose and piqued my interest for reading this book in the future, it was this paragraph that caught my attention:
More than once in my blogging I have offered ID antagonists a bit of tongue-in-cheek “strategy advice.” I tell them, “I’m going against my own best interests with this, but if you want to attack intelligent design, you really ought to quit aiming at the wrong targets. You attack it as creationism, but it isn’t that. You attack it as being an anti-science campaign, but it isn’t that, either. You attack it as a theocratic political ploy, and that’s not what it is, either. Here’s my advice: If you want to defeat ID for what it really is, maybe you should to attack it for what it really is: a scientific and philosophical approach to exploring origins.”
I’ve said it many times at EE that ID is (currently) lacking in scientific results – a point both supporters (i.e. Del Ratzsch) and critics (i.e. David Heddle) make; it is a valid argument.
However, that does not automatically wipe out ID’s legitimacy as “a scientific and philosophical approach to exploring origins”. On this blog and elsewhere, all arguments to prove this either fall short or hit the wrong target.
Recent Comments