Changes

Opposition to intelligent design is largely motivated by entrenched distaste for its philosophical implications.

'''Opposition to [[intelligent design]]''' (ID) is largely motivated by entrenched distaste for its philosophical implications.

{{quotebox| A living [[organism]] fulfills the definition of a [[machine]] all the way down to the [[molecular]] level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise [[naturally]] by [[random chance]]. [http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm]}}

{{quotebox| A living [[organism]] fulfills the definition of a [[machine]] all the way down to the [[molecular]] level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise [[naturally]] by [[random chance]]. [http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm]}}

The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?" Yet the first thing ID opponents always bring up is that [[design]] implies a designer. For atheists, such a designer could only be [[God]]. (Or as [[Richard Dawkins]] said in [[Expelled]], since God almost certainly does not exist, the designer must be an alien from outer space who was himself naturalistically evolved. Obviously, Dawkins brought up that alternative to dismiss it.)

The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?" Yet the first thing ID opponents always bring up is that [[design]] implies a designer. For atheists, such a designer could only be [[God]]. (Or as [[Richard Dawkins]] said in ''[[Expelled]]'', since God almost certainly does not exist, the designer must be an alien from outer space who was himself naturalistically evolved. Obviously, Dawkins brought up that alternative to dismiss it.)

Why are scientists, who supposedly only care about the physical world, up in arms about the religious implications of their work?  

Why are [[scientist]]s, who supposedly only care about the physical world, up in arms about the religious implications of their work?  

The point is that atheists and materialists in the mainstream of modern science reject any suggestion that the material world is all there is. If evolution were to lose credibility, atheism would accordingly lose support. This would lead to what is for them an outrageous alternative.

The point is that [[atheist]]s and materialists in the mainstream of modern science reject any suggestion that the material world is all there is. If [[evolution]] were to lose credibility, atheism would accordingly lose support. This would lead to what is for them an outrageous alternative.

The problem is the ideological refusal to separate science from ideology. Supposedly, pure science just explores what is and does its best to explain observed facts with theories. Physical science uses natural law for its explanations, and it has down spectacularly well, especially in the last 400 years. Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]] is an outstanding example of a very useful discovery which has saved countless lives.  

The problem is the ideological refusal to separate science from ideology. Supposedly, pure science just explores what is and does its best to explain observed facts with theories. Physical science uses natural law for its explanations, and it has down spectacularly well, especially in the last 400 years. Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]] is an outstanding example of a very useful discovery which has saved countless lives.