ID: Religious Motivation = Religion?

Filed under: ID — Barry Carey at 8:15 am on Friday, April 11, 2008

This is the 4th in a series of posts considering the objection of ID critics that ID is nothing more than religion. In my last post, I answered two assertions put forth in support of this claim. What about a third, that is, that because some intelligent design scientists are religiously motivated in their work, their work must be considered religion.

The claim that intelligent design is religious rather than scientific because intelligent design scholars might have religious motivations for their work is found everywhere. In fact, opponents typically spend much time publicizing the Christian beliefs of many of the leaders of the intelligent design movement when attempting to discredit intelligent design.

But, if one’s religious beliefs are enough to disqualify one as a scientist, then wouldn’t the public have to dismiss much of the progress made during the scientific revolution? Many great scientists of the time, including Galileo and Newton were motivated by religion do their work. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton state that…

… the driving impulse of Newton’s scientific work was… to defend Christian faith against what he saw as an encroaching mechanistic explanation.

Others were also overt in the role their Christian faith played in their scientific discoveries. Morris Kline states that science was a religious quest in which…

… the search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of (God’s) handiwork.

Instead of trying to refute the arguments of intelligent design scholars, opponents commit the genetic fallacy and reject the claim on the basis of their suppositions that its origins are religious.

Additionally, all scientists have some philosophical and religious commitments in their lives. Atheism, after all, is a philosophical supposition about the nature of the universe. Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview? Of course not. We judge the science on its own merits and do not discount his work because of his religious views.

Next, I’ll consider another objection by ID critics attempting to equate ID with religion.

3 Comments »

Comment by John the Skeptic

April 11, 2008 @ 9:00 am

“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

- William Dembski, writing for the Christian Magazine “Touchstone” in 1991.

Comment by BobC

April 11, 2008 @ 11:49 pm

“Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview?”

Wait a minute. An atheist, who considers all religions to be idiotic childish nonsense, is religious?

Non-religious people are religious?

Please use the word religious only for people who are stupid and gullible enough to believe in magical sky fairies.

To call an atheist religious is an insult.

The god nuts love to make up their own definitions of words instead of using the dictionary definition. I suppose if somebody is stupid enough to believe there’s an invisible man hiding in the clouds, then he’s stupid enough to call non-religious people religious.

By the way, people who believe in intelligent design are pathetic idiots. Design means magical creation, the designer is a magical fairy, and there’s nothing intelligent about this idiotic religious belief. Religious people should grow up and join the 21st century. Magic is for childish retards who want to live in the Dark Ages.

Comment by John the Skeptic

April 12, 2008 @ 9:36 am

Every one of these arguments, as I recall, was trotted out by the cdesign proponentsists in the Kitzmiller trial. Every one of them failed. Has anything happened in the 2 1/2 years since then to make these arguments more substantial? No. The author of these posts has shown us nothing new.

The author apparently would like to pretend that Kitzmiller never happened, and that all of these arguments were not carefully examined, and thoroughly debunked.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>