International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) say "Intelligent Design (ID) is neither sound science or good theology"

Comments by Crabsallover.

ISSR Statement on the Concept of 'Intelligent Design'

The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

The Society retains the copyright of the statement, but gives general permission to reproduce it, in whole or in part, provided that the statement in the paragraph immediately preceding this is reproduced.

About ISSR: ISSR was founded in 2001 under the inaugural presidency of mathematical physicist and Anglican priest Sir John Polkinghorne.

The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths (see http://www.issr.org.uk). It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.

The more wedges we find to drive between science and religion the better.

Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm

But their is no reliable evidence of a metaphysical realm. Why dont religious scientists use reason? Why does does faith and belief trump reason for religious scientists?

but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism.

ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be "irreducibly complex" and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer.

Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or "scientific" creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology.

Although the boundaries of science are open to change,

allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language.

Well said!

Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program.

So ID has no evidence to corroborate its arguement.

In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes.

Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions.

I don't see what the 'religious dimension' can add to evolutionary natural history.

Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.

Science and Religion compete head-to-head for the best way to understand the world. Science beats Religion every time!

In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right,

I don't recognise that Theology is a legitimate academic subject.

but

we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science

- just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism).

HASSERS attempts to give examples of how science is the only comprehensive world view.