This is not science, it is philosophy. I do not reject the impersonal processes, only the claim that they stand on their own. To claim no intelligent design is to go beyond the realm of natural science and into the realm of philosophical science, just as it is to claim it. The natural sciences are preceded by philosophical science. For example, before natural science can begin to investigate the specifics of a particular process by which something has happened, philosophy has logically come to the conclusion that a process is necessary to explain what we have observed, and therefore must exist.
You’re right in that claiming “no Intelligent Designer” (in the context of IDC) goes beyond the realm of natural science. Natural science simply ignores IDC, in the same way that it ignores any non-scientific, unnecessary pseudo-explanation.
Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although a Creationist does imply Intelligent Design. The Creationist theory and the Evolutionist theory both agree on the necessity for processes, though they differ on what these particular processes were/are. Natural scientific research agrees with Evolution, excluding the Creationist theory, though it does in the least refute Intelligent Design, as it can’t, due to the philosophical nature of the Intelligent Design theory.
If you look up the origins of IDC, you will see that it most certainly is Creationism, albeit thinly disguised. IDC came about solely as a mission to bring religion into the science class, which is why IDC is touted as science. This transparent ulterior motive was comprehensively busted in Dover v Kitzmiller. IDC advocates can kid themselves that it isn’t creationism, but who do they think the Designer was?
Tonyrey makes an excellent point when he says that purposeful activity does not come from purposeless causes.
What he actually makes is the Argument from Ignorance. “I can’t understand how purposeful activity emerged from a combination of individually purposeless atoms, therefore it can’t have done.” It’s a poor argument, and proves nothing, particularly not in the absence of any plausible alternative explanation.
Purpose we recognize via observation and analysis. What that specific purpose is natural science confirms and specifies by investigating the processes responsible for what we have observed. In the case of the skunk, we have observed the way it defends itself, and can conclude that the purpose of all the components involved in that process is for defense. Seeing as impersonal causes cannot logically be the origin of purpose, is it logical to assume that impersonal causes exist as anything other than secondary?
Yes, we can conclude that the purpose of the components involved in the process of defence, is primarily for defence. But it would be wrong to assume that this was an intended goal of the development of those components. Mr skunk’s ancestors didn’t start out millions of years ago saying, “We need to develop a defence mechanism that works by spraying a terrible-smelling substance all over our attackers.” Such a supposition would falsify The Theory That Must Not Be Named at a stroke.
The evolution of the skunk’s defence mechanism - indeed, of any defence mechanism, is explained in simple and elegant terms by the scientific theory we’re not allowed to talk about. That’s why it’s so frustrating that we’re not allowed to talk about it - because it means that theistic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of it is allowed to propagate unhindered. And yes - the theistic version of Evolution is deeply implausible, hence my comment regarding dogma vs knowledge.
I personally don’t believe that the level of vitriol had anything to do with the banning of Evolution or Atheism as discussion points. Why? Because there’s still plenty of heated argumentation on other subjects, and the mods don’t seem to be worried about that. On balance, it seems to me far more likely that the ban is in place because it allows theistic dogma to perpetuate unthreatened by common sense.
