ID Friendly at The New Republic #2: ID Is Science
Is intelligent design science? As noted before, Richard Dawkins says yes. And now, Thomas Nagel agrees, as do many others (bold emphasis mine):
I agree with Dawkins that the issue of design versus purely physical causation is a scientific question. He is correct to dismiss Stephen Jay Gould's position that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria." The conflict is real. But although I am as much of an outsider to religion as he is, I believe it is much more difficult to settle the question than he thinks. I also suspect there are other possibilities besides these two that have not even been thought of yet. The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism. Dawkins, like many of his contemporaries, is hobbled by the assumption that the only alternative to religion is to insist that the ultimate explanation of everything must lie in particle physics, string theory, or whatever purely extensional laws govern the elements of which the material world is composed.
Once again, Judge Jones with his double-standard ear plugs, is not likely listening. It should be clear to all the other judges in America that this issue cannot be decided for the entire country by one simple-minded judge in rural Pennsylvania. Philosophers in New York City, and elsewhere, do not want Judge Jones' personal opinions and stereotypes forced on them.
Previous posts of mine on whether ID is science are here and here.