re: #113 Sharmuta

I think it’s intellectually dishonest to claim a historical figure thinks anything about modern issues- especially on matters of science, where the historical figure never had an opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves. This is no different than claiming Newton as a creationist. Of course he was- Darwin was well after Newton’s time.

I also think it’s logically fallacious. If the creationists had something of substance to bolster their position- they wouldn’t have to rely on putting words in the mouths of the dead.

All true, and yet I honestly believe that at the heart of evolution v. intelligent design is whether God created the universe.

To the extent that Maimonedes would have been a religious philosopher in 2009, I cannot see how he would not believe in intelligent design.

As I said before, I believe intelligent design is not science. But the question of whether or not God created the universe and interferes in our lives today is the central one in Judaism and all major religions, and so it is also intellectually dishonest to deny that.

Again, I am not saying this as a believer in intelligent design, but rather as someone who has spent years studying religion and come to this conclusion.