Do ‘atheists’ have an edge in studying ‘ID’? 

We cited an ID ‘classic’, Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, cheerfully unconcerned about its heretical stance on the Grand Paradigm, Darwinism, near the Darwin establishment, and t…

Source: Do ‘atheists’ have an edge in studying ‘ID’? – Darwiniana

Do ‘atheists’ have an edge in studying ‘ID’?

We cited an ID ‘classic’, Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, cheerfully unconcerned about its heretical stance on the Grand Paradigm, Darwinism, near the Darwin establishment, and the Darwin Propaganda Machine. Most scientists simply get fired from their jobs for even referring to ID save in condemnation. One of the ironies of science history is the way that religious groups have picked up the critique of Darwinism, then produced a new form of design argument that has undermined their useful critique. However they have made their point: biological systems show design. It is almost futile to deny this: look at any biological organ. The design factor is obvious and it has nothing to do with theology. We cannot really invoke the ‘design argument for the existence’ of god, since Kant, but that doesn’t mean design is false. But the moment we invoke ‘intelligent’ design the suspicion arises we are trying to sneak in divinity. The problem is or should be obvious: we can’t bring ‘god’ into an evolution argument, even if we are theists, since we can’t define ‘god’ at all, let alone say whether ‘that’ is intelligent. Clearly biological machines look ‘intelligent’ but that is, at least in the context of so much theological hankering, a fallacy in motion, and in the hands of theological prejudice. But in fact an atheist can deal with this confusion more consistently, and in the process get past the injection of theism into a scientific argument. But we have put ‘atheism’ in quotation marks: there are so many different definitions of ‘god’ that negating them all is impossible. So the question is really about the now seemingly primitive theism of the biblical tradition…