Science? Religion? Philosophy?

Many people are delighted to insist hyper-simplistically that intelligent design is not science, but rather religion. For many, it is clear that they do not know more about ID than what they have read in a magazine article. Let's have a look:

Intelligent design theory involves scientific and philosophical concepts.

It is based on scientific data and evidence.

It has philosophical and religious implications. It is generally consistent with a theistic worldview.


Macroevolutionary theory involves scientific and philosophical concepts.

It is based on scientific data and evidence.

It has philosophical and religious implications. It is generally consistent with an atheistic worldview.

* * *

So, yes, intelligent design has religious implications, but macroevolutionary theory so obviously does too.

The ACLU wants to ban even a one minute mention of intelligent design from public schools, and promote a governmentally enforced Darwin Only requirement on science education. Is that what the US Constitution requires? My views are here.

For more on worldviews and evaluating the evidence, consider this.

* * *

Post Note: Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and an "ardent evolutionist," in his own words. His views on the religious implications and impact of macroevolutionary theory are discussed in this review of his recent book. For a discussion of the a priori philosophical/religious commitments of some scientists, you can read here.

* * *

Post Note #2: A more recent post on Michael Ruse's views of evolution as a religion is here.