I read about four books in favor of Intelligent Design a few years ago, and I'm still not sure I totally understand it. I mean, I get the irreducible complexity and whatnot, but there are still things I have to ask questions about even after I've read probably a thousand pages of their literature. I don't mind people reading some religious philosophy if it'll get them to read about some science. What I dislike is that they are presenting ID as science rather than religious philosophy.
Materialism/Philosophical Naturalism is also a philosophy, and it goes back 500 years before the birth of Christ, and so, the way I see it, is that they are both philosophies. To say that one is science while the other is not is no different than a protestant thinking that what they believe is Scripture only
, while what we believe is tradition. When the truth is, we both believe in tradition. The difference is, we have a different interpretation of Scripture. And in Science, we have a different interpretation of the evidence.
must be glued together in narrative form. So the question is, what narrative are you gonna have?
Will you have "everything is choas"? Or will you have "everything is design"? Or a mixture of both?
If everything is chaos, then design is an illusion. If everything is design, then chaos is an illusion. If it's a mixture of both, then it's gonna give our brains a headache just thinking about it.....for there will be alot of things to sort out.
Back in the day....500 years before Christ, people believed in "Revolution" or spontaneous generation.....or something like that. But people thought we came from all sorts of things....from dragon teeth to who knows what. In modern times, some think we came from the backs of chrystals. But the main difference between ancient Materialism/Naturalism and modern is the concept of time. Back then, they didn't have the belief of millions to billions of years......I'm talking about the Greeks and Romans, and not other cultures like China, India and some tribes in Africa.
So what changed was the idea of time, so instead of "spontaneous generation", you had "evolution" over hundreds of millions and billions of years.
So an aspect of Materialism/Naturalism is old, while another aspect of it is new. But both ID and Materialist evolution contain a measure of philosophy.
I'm willing to be corrected about the issue of spontaneous generation as well as what the ancient western materialist/Naturalists believed.