Whining? Do you deny that an intelligent cause ‘was’ a given within science for two millennia and proceeded Christianity? Are you so naive to think that modern scientists do not see any intelligence or any design in our existence (or would you prefer all to focus only on those who do not)? Even agnostic Greek philosophers made reference to a ’prime mover’ at the beginning.
Beyond this, what are we to do with those who believe in human consciousness within the recently imposed Methodological Naturalism constraints? Are those who ‘believe’ human consciousness the next in line for the ‘anti-science’ label? Surely you realize that human consciousness under the current paradigm must merely be an "emergent property" of the complexity of the processes and structures underlying its expression. IOW our intelligence (morality, love, altruism, etc..) must ultimately come from this unintelligent and un-designed universe. Obviously those who believe otherwise must believe in a soul or some sort of dualism that cannot exist in Methodological Naturalism and must therefore be labeled as anti-science.
Heck, let’s just take a look at how ‘current’ science defines our human consciousness as qualitative piece parts:
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"This is what you are left with… Human consciousness; it’s all an illusion that exists for no ultimate reason. We, as humans, ‘think/believe’ we fortuitously stumbled accidentally upon this via science. To ‘believe’ that our morals, the beauty that we see, art, literature, and science itself came from something other than a mindless cause is heresy within this ‘current’ paradigm of science.PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
No… This is ‘current’ science and 'your' philosophy - so you must tell us all how we evolved our morality and how it is actually an illusion because morality does not actually exist in the universe we live in… The ownness is with you.
morality consists of a universal moral code- some might argue “Well there are cultures that don’t concider murder/rape etc wrong, so morality is a subjective ideal, however, this is a false argument as those who have come out of such cultural practices have testified that even though it was an accepted norm to commit these attrocities, and everyone encouraged it, something deep inside them told them it was wrong and that they never felt right about it. Philosophers have argued about whether morality was a subjective or objective truth for a long time now, and there is more evidence indicating that it is indeed an objective unioversal moral code and not some drummed up evolutionary process- Dawkins has tried desperately to argue that emotions have ‘evolved’ and that there are genes that control things like selfishenss and morality- however, this simply isn’t the case- Some have also argued that folks with frontal lobe damage aren’t capable of morality, however this is also false, and they know right from wrong still, but choose not to take part in a morally driven society anymore.