Intelligent Design and Religion

Extract

[...] Intelligent Design and Religion According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and according to the Fourteenth Amendment, state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Thus, an analysis of the first amendment, in light of the fourteenth, it stands to say that no state is allowed to pass laws that support the establishment of a religion. Thus, we must establish whether teaching intelligent design constitutes a religion. [...]

[...] Thus, it becomes apparent that the proponents of intelligent design believe in it because they think it is right, and their supporters believe in them, because they think they are right. If one looks at intelligent design in this light, one may make the argument that it resembles a religion, or rather, that intelligent design is religious in nature. Thus far we have not established the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design, but have only said that it may or may not be viewed as religious, and the purpose of this article is to identify whether teaching intelligent design is legal or not. [...]

[...] While Cleanthes, who is an empirical theist, supports it, and Demea, who is an orthodox Christian, is ambivalent towards it, Philo remains skeptical. His skeptical philosophy is rooted in his belief that reason alone is not enough to reach conclusions about complicated matters. Instead, in order to obtain true knowledge it is necessary to experience whatever subject is being considered, and only through direct experience can one reach any rational and concrete conclusions. Thus, Philo tells Cleanthes that he should be least skeptical in those areas that he has the most direct experience, such as morals or politics, and the most skepticism in those areas that he has the least direct experience, such as theology. [...]