The content of the lecture also demonstrates, incidentally, that the dismissal of ID as religion is shallow and uninformed.
Well, actually, what if ID is somebody’s religion? Most of us would say it wasn’t a good enough religion.
Like, you can’t appeal to the design of the universe to forgive your sins and help you change your life. But if someone insists that that’s his religion anyway, what about it?
Even asking this question shows up the shallowness of the Christian Darwinists who denounce design theorists because they supposedly worship a God who is merely a designer. Of course not. But if design is real, it’s real. It is only one aspect of the way things are – but it’s still one aspect, and an important one.
If Darwinism can’t do complex information – as is increasingly more obvious by the day – then design is real and must be addressed as such.
Seriously, would the Darwinists have gone whole hog into climate change activism, despite the serious reputation risks, if they had been overwhelmed by evidence from nature for Darwinism as a creative force? Wouldn’t they be far too busy? To ask such a question is to answer it.
They have delivered the verdict on themselves.
Follow UD News at Twitter!