Science, evolution, creation, design and nature are the key terms to be analyzed on critics of the evolutionary naturalism, according to William Dembski who is proposing the addition of the two last ones, design and nature, to the list initially proposed by Phillip Johnson. Is that all? No!
« There’s a sixth term that could have been added to the five key terms, but is best kept in the background, namely, Religion. »
Now, now, now, didn’t he said that Intelligent Design had nothing to do with religion, it was pure science?
The prefect ending to such an interrogation would be for [RD Darwinists] to admit that they are Darwinists first and foremost because Darwinism is the most effective tool for destroying religion (this is the ideal — don’t expect to achieve it).
What their opinion about Intelligent design is, doesn’t really matters, huh?
For the ES Darwinists, the aim of the interrogation is to show that they are condescending elitists who don’t have a religious bone in their bodies but who nonetheless presume to tell religious believers how they should make their peace with evolution.
So, it seems that you may need a religious bone to understand Intelligent Design, after all.
KM Darwinists need to be pressed into admitting that their theology requires that ID be kept as a live possibility.
This is quite similar to those Inquisition pressure systems; they could be useful to press KM Darwinists, maybe intimidate ES Darwinists, but something stronger should be found for RD Darwinists! Maybe
Quotations are from The Vise Strategy, Squeezing the Truth out of Darwinists [available here], by William A. Dembski