Ironies of ‘intelligent’ design terminology

++We can reiterate our point from yesterday’s post: The debate over design and ‘intelligent design is almost intractable but a strange irony lurks in the debate: If we are wary of the term ‘intelligent’ we can use the idea of ‘intelligent’ (in quotation marks) design but then we can’t use the false evidence of theistic design in the old Testament. You can’t have it both ways.
The study of the eonic model can help here: the emergence of monotheism shows ‘intelligent’ design, but that does not refer to ‘god’ or ‘yahweh’ except as the output of the design factor in the ‘eonic evolution of civilization’. The term ‘intelligent’ design actually works better for an atheist, which is quite strange at first, but clear enough to a close look. The eonic effect shows the emergence of two religions in synchronous action, Buddhism and Israetlite ‘monotheism’, one atheistic and the other theistic. Therefore the ‘design’ in the eonic effect clearly transcends the duality of theism and atheism. What does that mean?   The term ‘intelligent’ design is too provocative for sage use, but in principle the term ‘intelligent’ design, or better just ‘design’, imply nothing about theology.

Source: ID and the confusion of (a)theistic historicism…//Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s