How should we look at the logical and sociological aspects of Intelligent Design?
• in science every theory should be logically evaluated based on its scientific merit, not on the motives of its advocates; a theory of evolution should not be rejected because some of its advocates are atheists, and a theory of design should not be rejected because most of its advocates are theists. According to conventional scientific method, non-scientific motivations are acceptable when a theory is proposed, but “hoping a theory is true (or false)” should not be a factor when a theory is being evaluated. • sociological connections between ID and YEC are mostly irrelevant in scientific debates, because in their arguments all ID proponents assume a conventional old-earth history of nature; some assume this because they think it’s true, and others do it “for the sake of argument” so the focus will be on how rather than when. There are many similarities in the scientific claims of ID and OEC (and YEC when the focus is on how, not when, and old-earth history is assumed) and in the evide
Related Questions
- The whole positive argument for intelligent design as you ve described it, Professor Behe, is look at this system, look at these parts, they appear designed, correct?
- How should we look at the logical and sociological aspects of Intelligent Design?
- What aspects should a Design and Access Statement cover?
