"Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?" was the theme of a conference sponsored by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and hosted by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.Michael Keas and William Dembski of Southwestern Seminary and Stephen C. Meyer, John West and Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute were among the featured speakers at the Oct. 23-24 conference. In another session of the conference, Jay Richards, a senior fellow with the Center for Science and Culture and coauthor of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," corrected opponents of the Intelligent Design movement who claim that it is merely religion disguised as science.
- Much of the erroneous ID critique is based on inaccurate definitions, Richards said, setting forth two basic assertions that ID proponents make. First, "the activities of intelligent agency are sometimes detectable." Commonly accepted fields of science are based on the assumption that scientists can observe the effects that intelligent beings have upon nature. Archaeologists, for example, put this into practice when they examine artifacts they believe to be manmade, and forensic scientists apply this principle when they attempt to trace the proof for intelligent causes in homicide cases.
- Second, Richards said, ID proponents suggest that "nature exhibits the evidence of intelligent agency," something he said is "theologically minimal." Although ID proponents may observe signs of intelligent activity in nature, they cannot prove scientifically that the intelligent designer is the god of a certain religion, or that the designer is even supernatural, Richards said. Describing the nature of the designer belongs in the realm of philosophical and theological discussion.
- "So notice how lightly it travels," Richards said. "Notice, there is not a doctrine of creation here. There is not a doctrine of God here. There is not a developed theology. There is not even really a developed philosophy at this point. There is just basically these two claims. "Think of Intelligent Design generally as a research program that seeks to ask questions like this, 'Does nature display objective evidence of design or purpose?' It uses publicly available evidence from the natural world. It also includes, usually, some type of theory of design detection so that we can determine whether something is designed or not."
Darwinists are just wrong when they state that ID is Creationism. By definition, it is not. They are merely dismissive of the topic rather than debating it with knowledgable people.