The absurdity of a so-called Christian conspiracy to destroy science has been promoted by many in the scientific establishment. Melanie Phillps goes to great pains to set the record straight, she is not part of this so-called conspiracy but rather writes in The Spectator and interesting enough the title is called; The secular inquisition…
“I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.”
Melanie Phillips is not a Christian, but an agnostic where one holds there are no absolutes. So it’s not surprising she has embraced the ID movement, and is she right about the modern intelligent design movement not being a form of creationism. She points two major differences, one being the ID movement embraces the worldview on the age of the earth and the other is organisms develop and change into new species over time.
Instead of being guided by natural selection under the framework of random chance, the modern ID movement claims “intelligent agents” are using purpose, guiding the evolution of these animals in a certain and precise direction. Her comments disappointed the militant crowd a few responses went like this…
“Is it a secular inquisition when we ask for EVIDENCE.
And, just because there are some Flat Earthers about, should we also be having a discussion on the geometry of our Planet?” -Kittler He tries the insult approach, very unscientific especially for one trying to claim he is a defender of science. I assume he is a teenager and if he is not, than he sure acts like one.
“Ms Phillips writes “What [ID proponents¨] don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything.” Two errors for the price of one! First, evolution is not random or blind-chance. It follows a logical path determined by a simple principal commonly referred to as survival of the fittest.” Sounds like some sort of intelligent engineering that has a goal in mind, because an unthinking process doesn’t know how to use logic let alone have a goal…lol
Here is a biologist perhaps using his real name; Alan Fox…“I am sorry but claiming ID comes out of science is just wrong. ID is a philosophical argument. It makes claims that are untestable scientifically. Critics say ID is not science because ID is not science.” Alan makes a faulty assumption for his disagreement, one of which is often times repeated but never verified which is circular reasoning “it’s not a science because it’s not a science.” On the contrary, irreducible complexity is in fact a testable theory and part of the cell body of the prokaryotic and eukaryotic known as the bacterial flagella is certainly a testable theory for specified complexity as well.
“Thou shalt not think a thought beyond the narrow confines of Dawkins’ dictatorial and highly prescriptive orthodoxy.” by Michael B. Well Dawkins wasn’t the original promoter of such a concept but rather it’s the militant worldview in general.