I would go so far as to argue that ID is consistent with atheism! What kind of apologetic for God’s existence is also consistent with God’s non-existence? A horrible one, that’s for sure!
He points out that ID, instead, undergirds the basis of rationality. A useful function in a time when we are not short of Darwinists who claim that our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth, and that most of our decisions are irrational, or that consciousness is an illusion.
The background is that our own johnnyb has tried to explain to Thomistic philosopher Ed Feser that ID is not an argument for religion (an apologetic) at all.
The view from the News desk: ID is a series of observations about nature that show that design must play a role. In other words, Darwin was wrong and his project is completely hopeless, however lavishly funded, touted in the media, awarded, or enforced through the courts.
Merely noticing the design of life is – we would be the first to admit – not a reason you should join a church or synagogue. For one thing, most Western world religion today is revealed religion. In other words, religion is what a revelation tells us about the nature of things that we cannot deduce from nature. If we can deduce it from the study of nature, it is not religion, whether our observations show design or not.
Nature cannot tell us whether we should be our brother’s keeper or whether it is better for a man to lose the whole world but keep his soul from corruption. Nature has nothing to say about anything like that, but religion does – by revelations the universe really does work that way, whether we happen to see it locally today or not.
Follow UD News at Twitter!