With Bobby Conway.
A friend has written me (O’Leary for News) to complain that the question is a dud. Friend, I sort of see what you mean.
Putting it that way (is ID “science”?) reifies science in a way that distorts both the question and any possible answer.
The question should be, Does ID provide accurate accounts of the origin and nature of life forms? Does it answer questions in a way that leads to greater knowledge and more avenues for exploration?
If it does, but still isn’t considered “science,” well, so much the worse for science.
Science is first and foremost a methodology for discovering accurate information about our world. It is not supposed to be a philosophy in competition with other philosophies.
Indeed, philosopher Feser’s impatience with the ramblings of would-be philosopher (but in fact cosmologist) Larry Krauss can be partly understood in this light: What business is it of Krauss’s whether other scientists are militant atheists like himself?
Follow UD News at Twitter!