This was very interesting to me, because the guy in the video (a Muslim named Subboor) says that Muslims should not support the Intelligent Design argument and gives his reasons why. He's incredibly well read!
I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts (from both camps)!
My review....
He starts off by saying that the problem is scientism, i.e. the belief that science is the only source of knowledge for all subjects. While I agree that sort of thing can be a problem, he does not say exactly
who is guilty of it, let alone show
where they are engaging in it.
He then says we believe in scientific conclusions because of "testimony from scientists". While that may be true for the general public in a very superficial way, the reality is that no one
has to rely on mere testimony. There's a reason scientific papers have entire sections for methods, results, and discussion.....it's so anyone who's truly interested can see for themselves how the data was collected, how it was analyzed, and how the conclusions stem from those results. So the reason the general public largely relies on "testimony from scientists" isn't because scientists are telling everyone "X is true because we say so", it's because by making their work so transparent for the last century+, the the scientific community has earned a bit of trust among the public. Therefore, a more accurate way to describe the situation is scientists telling the public "We've concluded that the data supports X. Anyone who's interested can read more about how that's so by reading our paper." The fact that most of the public chooses not to read the paper is not a knock on scientists or their work.
He then states that "intelligent design" is an attempt to make a scientific case for the existence of God, and that's a result of the "world of scientism" in which we live. Other than the straw man regarding scientism, he is correct. ID creationism is indeed a legal/political attempt to make a scientific case for God.
Regarding the above, he correctly notes that because science operates according to methodological naturalism, gods by definition cannot be part of the scientific method, which means ID creationism cannot be science.
He then argues that ID creationism actually buys into scientism because it assumes that theists need to make a scientific case for God. I think that's a valid point.
He also notes that even if ID creationism successfully made a case for God, because scientific theories are always provisional, the hypothetical case for God could always be overturned. Again, I think that's a valid point.
He then states that human/chimp common ancestry is directly opposed to Islam, and since ID creationism is silent on that issue, Muslims should not support ID creationism. Not being a Muslim, I really have no thoughts on that other than my sadness at seeing yet another religious group declare that if reality conflicts with their religious beliefs, they will always reject reality no matter what.
He then notes how Islam states that
everything was created by God, whereas ID creationism says that
some things were created by God. He also notes that ID creationism doesn't specify who or what the "designer" is, which is a problem for Muslims as well as scientists.
He finishes by noting that just because Muslims reject common ancestry, that doesn't mean they have to come up with a replacement.
Overall, I think he does make a good case for why Muslims should not advocate for ID creationism. I took his gripes about scientism to be more a subconscious reflection of his angst over the world's increasing shift towards secularism, of which science is indeed a factor.
