Personally, I like Dawkin's refutation of ID in http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
My concern will all religion is that, by definition, it is irrational. Once someone is prepared to be irrational in certain areas (particularly when it is about such big issues as morals, the purpose of life, the relative value of the life of believers vs non-believers etc.) how can you ever be sure they will be rational about anything?
ID is a good example of this. They believe there is a creator and that the earth was created c. 6000 years ago, so want to undermine anything that refutes this belief. They are prepared to be irrational in this sphere of science because it is required to sustain their belief system.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 11:52 am (UTC)My concern will all religion is that, by definition, it is irrational. Once someone is prepared to be irrational in certain areas (particularly when it is about such big issues as morals, the purpose of life, the relative value of the life of believers vs non-believers etc.) how can you ever be sure they will be rational about anything?
ID is a good example of this. They believe there is a creator and that the earth was created c. 6000 years ago, so want to undermine anything that refutes this belief. They are prepared to be irrational in this sphere of science because it is required to sustain their belief system.