It is commonly known that the theory of intelligent design is anti-naturalistic. The anti- naturalism of this theory is usually interpreted as a methodological or metaphysical one. In other words, the theory of intelligent design is considered as a kind of creationism (“creationism in a cheap tuxedo”) and is also often named “neo-creationism.” In the paper I am arguing that this qualification is wrong and is implied by assuming an inappropriate sense of the ambiguous term “naturalism”.

Intelligent design theory is accused of being a hidden form of creationism. Evolutionism and creationism are formulated in different epistemic frameworks. The author wants to answer the question whether the accusation mentioned above is right. The theory does not indicate the source of design. It only postulates the possibility of detecting the design in nature. The identification of the designer is not possible with the help of scientific methods. Therefore, intelligent design theory is compatible both with naturalistic and creationist epistemic (...) frameworks. (shrink)

The paper is devoted to the issue of warfare between science and religion. The author describes various positions at this issue, analyzing their faults and merits. He concludes that two most popular ones — of the two books (the Bible, book of Revelation, and the book of Nature), and of complete separated, non-overlapping magisteria (so-called bomb-shelter theology) — are untenable. He proposes a new conception instead of them — the conception of punctuated, or interrupted, discordism — according to which science (...) and religion are predominantly in real conflict which though dangerous is not fatal to both sides of the conflict. It is so because science is ever-changing set of hypothetical claims in comparison to religious claims which are dogmatic and unchangeable. (shrink)