Over at UD, ID theorist johnnyb states that it makes perfect sense that economist Bob Murphy would support ID.
[…] there is actually a direct connection between ID and economics. First of all, as I have pointed out innumerable times, ID is not a theory of biology or of origins, it is a theory of causation. Biology and origins are application areas, not the core idea itself.
[…] In his book, Human Action, Ludwig von Mises built a system for economic analysis (known as the “Austrian School”) that explicitly uses the term methodological dualism to describe what they do. This methodological dualism arises from the fact that mind and choices are completely different kinds of causes than are physical/mathematical systems. In other words, they were the first to get rid of naturalism in exchange for including design in their academic work.
First of all, of course economists were not the first to understand that causality via minds (such as conscious will) is radically different from the causality between inert objects. This realisation is as about old as philosophy itself.
Second, the realm of mind is absolutely not called design. Not even intelligent design. It is called the mind. The mind may design stuff, but then it’s the stuff that is designed or has a design, not the mind. Since ID-ists never get this bit right, they are deservedly ignored in academia.
In economics it is not called design either. In economics as a social science, it is called human behaviour, analysed as economic forces and social outcomes through individual, group, and mass behaviour in some order and structure.
To be sure, the causality in economics is decidedly different from causality in, say, physics or biology, but economists were not the pioneers in this. The pioneers in this were the philosophers as elaborators of common sense. And they do not call it design.
There is no necessary connection between economics and ID theory. Rather, there is a necessary disconnect between ID theory and any science worth the name.