ID as Religion

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schradinator:
Why not?

---

Whay doesn't the theory of evolution concern itself with life's origins? Because it wasn't formulated to do that. ID doesn't say anything about the designer because it was not formulated for that purpose.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Why is that very logical, natural question deemed off limits by IDists?

---

Correction. It is not off limits to IDists. It is off limits to ID. If we follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion we would have to ask similar questions- where did life come from? where did nature come from? etc.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
I mean, if we look at Archeology, that is exactly the question that is asked all the time:

​

When and Archaeologist finds pots, tools, buildings and other artifacts, they study them to figure out the nature of the culture that created and made them. That's kind of the whole point.

---

That is what I have been posting but your evo-brethren say we are both mistaken. The point to ID is to detect and understand the design. I have posted that by doing such we MAY be able to gain some insight as to the designer(s). But again we may not. By studying an airplane I doubt I will find out about the Wright brothers.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
...and this is where it fails as science and becomes bad philosophy.

---

What is your reasoning behind that assertion? Did we have to identify the designers of Stonehenge before we looked at it as the product of some intelligent agency? No.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Why conclude "intelligence" out of a lack of knowledge?

---

We don't. We infer "intelligence" from our current state of knowledge.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Why not say "we don't know", and "let's investigate further"?

---

Because what is being said that only explanations with materialistic naturalsim implications will be considered.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
In other words, how can I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we:

​

1) don't understand yet, but will in the fututre, or
2) don't have the capability to ever understand?

---

Science is not done on what we may or may not know in the future. Science is done with our current knowledge base. Future knowledge may falsify materialistic naturalism.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Just because we can't figure out a problem doesn't mean an Intelligent Designer didit. It only means that we don't understand, nothing more.

---

Then why do people like you already attribute what we don't know to some unknown natural phenomena?"The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders.[/b]

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

holmes, you bring up interesting points. Could you please start another thread. I see that no one has refuted the points I made showing that ID is not a religion so I take it this thread has run its course.Aren't you the one who posted a link to the rules? See ya in another thread and yes Del's book sets the parameters for detecting design, even supernatural design. It is a very good book- he gets into Dembski too. Nature, Design and Science...

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
1) First a clear and consistent set of criteria for detecting design must be proven and established as useful. This means getting it into USE. Proven by actually differentiating between known manufactured and known nonmanufactured entities (both biological and nonbiological).

---

And how about a clear and consistent set of criteria for showing what nature acting alone can (or can't, would or wouldn't) do? This means getting it into USE.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

holmes:
In a similar fashion, the only experiences we have had in this life, which have been studied and DOCUMENTED, are of natural processes.

---

That depends on what you are calling natural processes. I use the term to mean that nature acting alone did it. In that sense you are wrong. In any other sense it is too ambiguous to be meaningful.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did we have to identify the designers of Stonehenge before we looked at it as the product of some intelligent agency? No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Ah, but we had the demonstrated knowledge of people making things out of stone and aranging them in a particular way, so we have some good, positive evidence that people were likely to have constructed Stonehenge.

---

That's is NOT the point. The point is we didn't have to know anything about those alleged people before we inferred Stonehenge was the producy of an intelligent agency.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
We know that people are likely to have constructed Stonehenge, so now we investigate to figure out who, and how, and why.

---

By your logic I can assume that beavers built all the dams in the world or is that people are building the dams for beavers?Wrong. What IDists are saying is that based on our current level of knowledge ID is the best explanation for what we observe.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
So, you have positive evidence that there was an Intelligent Designer?

---

Yes. The evidence is life, the bac flag, IC, specified complexity and information-rich systems

quote:

---

schrafinator:
What are the mechanisms by which this Intelligernt Designer works?

​

What is the nature of the Intelligent Designer?

---

Neither are relevant to detecting and understanding design.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Surely, you must have positive evidence of the existence of an Intelligent Designer before you can claim that it is the cause of anything, don't you?

---

The evidence has been given. Do you have any positive evidence that nature acting alone brought life from non-life?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because what is being said that only explanations with materialistic naturalsim implications will be considered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Well, right.

​

Methodological naturalism is science. If you aren't using methodological naturalism, you aren't doing science and are doing philosophy.

​

Sorry, that's the rules.

---

Not if the rules are also in debate:
In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the teach the controversy model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy. John Angus Campbell, pg. xxv 3rd paragraph of [I][b]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/I][/b].However materialistic naturalism is NOT the same as applying methodological approaches to science:
IDists’ (yes led by Behe on the molecular front, or even Denton before him) base our conclusion (that an intelligent agency played a role in the design of our universe, including life) on our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.If you want to tell the difference use Dembski's design explanatory filter.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The evidence is life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Loudmouth:
Therefore, if life can not arise through natural mechanisms then a supernatural deity is required. If a supernatural deity is required then ID theory as presented by creationists is a religion.

---

First ID is not presented by creationists and second just because the evidence leads us to the metaphysical it does not follow that religion has to be attached.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

RAZD:
What follows is an interpretation of that document by a proponent of ID and not by any judge on the Ninth Circuit, ergo it is NOT a definitive answer but just an opinion, a self-biased opinion.

---

LoL!!! As if YOU have offered anything but a self-biased opinion. However I did not offer an opinion, I offered FACTS.Part 1:
a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable mattersFACT 1
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design? Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer. Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people. In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.Part 2:
a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teachingFACT 2
ID says nothing of morality, metaphysics or an afterlife. Code of conduct or a belief in divine revelation is not required. ID won’t help IDists find any underlying meaning of the universe. ID is simply a theory on the source of the appearance of design and extends beyond biology. In biology ID merely tries to apply well-established scientific method to the analysis of what we observe, i.e. IC in biological organisms. Clearly ID is an isolated teaching.Part 3:
a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signsFACT 3
ID is not beholden to any religious texts. Its adherents come from varying religious backgrounds. There aren’t any ID ceremonies. ID offers nothing to worship. ID says nothing about worship, how, why, what, where. There aren’t any ID holidays.Now on the other hand, due to your ignmorance of ID, all you can offer is un-substatiated assertions and blatant lies.We shall look further:

quote:

---

RAZD:
Such as the origin of life, the special place of human life in the course of the universe (at least to humans) and the ways that such life may have come into existence.

---

ID says nothing about any special place for human life.

quote:

---

RAZD:
For ID the belief system is that a designer is involved in the development of life, and this is certainly not an isolated teaching judging from the extensive and growing numbers of books, websites and articles on the issue of whether or not a designer is involved.

---

Wrong again. Just because a designer was required for life doesn't mean that designer hung around for its development. I don't need a software programmer to run the application programs that run on my computer. ID says nothing about morality or an afterlife.ID is not a belief-system as it is based on evidence. The theory of evolution with the alleged history of life is a belief system in comparison.It is clear that RAZD does not want to face the facts. He is quite content with misrepresenting reality to fit his agenda. That is fine with me.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:06 AM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's is NOT the point. The point is we didn't have to know anything about those alleged people before we inferred Stonehenge was the producy of an intelligent agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:

​

It is the point.

​

We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.

---

How do we know that?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
We have positive evidence of people making stuff like that. Anyone can observe people making stuff like that.

---

Where and when was another Stonehenge made?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. What IDists are saying is that based on our current level of knowledge ID is the best explanation for what we observe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
It's not an explanation at all.

---

And what kind of expalnation is "nature did it"? Why go against what we do know to posit something else?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
It's an "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy.

​

"We don't believe that any naturalistic explanation will ever exist for this mechanism, therefore we can just assume the IDer Didit, and don't ask about who the IDer is, or how he designed, we don't want to talk about that."

---

By your logic when an archeologist comes upon an inscription in the wall he should assume it was put there by nature acting alone. We don't want him to commit a "scribe-of-gaps" fallacy.
We do not need to know who designed my car to know it was designed. We do not need to know how it was designed to deyect and understand it. However I can understand that logic eludes you.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The evidence is life, the bac flag, IC, specified complexity and information-rich systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
No, those are phenomena you want to explain by a Designer.

---

No, those are evidences of a designer.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
You then should look for evidence that this Designer is at work. You can't then point at the original phenomena as your evidence. For example, an evolutionary scientist may explain camoflauge by natural selection. When pressed for evidence of natural selection, it doesn't make any sense to point to camoflauge. That's circular reasoning. Likewise, and ID'er can't point to the bacterial flagellum, say the Designer made it, then say that the evidence for this is the flagellum itself.

---

OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity. It is a multi-part system that functions because of the parts that make it up. We can be assured of its design as we can with any other multi-part system that a;so exhibits IC- getting seperate components together in such a way to achieve a function that depends on the components.

quote:

---

scrafinator:
So, you point to a natural phenomena that we currently do not understand, and say the IDer Didit, but we aren't allowed to ask HOW the IDer Didit?

---

Just because something exists in nature does not equal it being created by nature. Also you can ask those questions. It is just that ID was not formulated to answer them. Does the theory of evolution answer life's origins? No.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
We should just take your word for it that the IDer didit?

---

And we should take your word that nature acting alone did it? Where did nature come from?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
What kind of science is that?

---

Ditto.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
But how do you know that a naturalistic explanation will not be found 100 years from now to explain whatever you say is unexplainable by naturalistic means?

---

And how do you know that the designer will not be revealed in that same time frame? Science is not done with promissory notes.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to tell the difference use Dembski's design explanatory filter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
No, I'd like you to explain it to me, if you would be so kind.

---

Not today. This is a discussion board. IOW you are supposed to come prepared. How is that people feel qualified to dis something they know little or nothing about?Where is your positive evidence?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Using supernaturalistic mechanisms tends to stop inquiry cold and you then run into problems with falsifiability, further distancing the hypothesis from science.

---

More evidence that schraf does not understand ID. There is still plenty of work to be done to understand the design. Sir Isaac didn't give up just because he knew what he observed was put there by a supernatural entity.How do we falsify the notion that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes by nature acting alone?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

MrHambre:
Behe and the other ID creationists ...

---

Behe isn't an ID Creationist. I don't know of any ID Creationists. Your whole premise is faulty.IDC exists only in the minds of people who don't know better- people that drool a lot.Where is your positive evidence that nature acting alone did all this? Where did nature come from?Your arguments are childish at best.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:35 AM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

jar:
So when all logic and reason fail, you resort to attacking the poster.

---

No attacks, just an observation. It is obvious MrHambre knows very little if anything about ID. This has been shown to him many times, yet he keeps up the BS. That is childish, or worse.As far as logic and reason, MrHambre does not understand those words either. Most evos don't. Not an attack, just an observation.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:59 AMThis message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:59 AM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

The court’s 3-part test to define religion:
First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.Part 1:
a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable mattersFact 1:
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design? Even though IDists attribute the design to a designing intelligence, ID says nothing of the designer. Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people. In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.Part 2:
a religion is comprehensive in nature: it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teachingFact 2:
ID says nothing of morality, metaphysics or an afterlife. Code of conduct or a belief in divine revelation is not required. ID won’t help IDists find any underlying meaning of the universe. ID is simply a theory on the source of the appearance of design and extends beyond biology. In biology ID merely tries to apply well-established scientific method to the analysis of what we observe, i.e. IC in biological organisms. Clearly ID is an isolated teaching.Part 3:
a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signsFact 3:
ID is not beholden to any religious texts. Its adherents come from varying religious backgrounds. (Denton is an agnostic) There aren’t any ID ceremonies. ID offers nothing to worship. ID says nothing about worship, how, why, what, where. There aren’t any ID holidays. There isn’t an ID priest or rabbi.The above facts are based on the knowledge of what ID is. Now if RAZD has any evidence that contradicts those facts I will gladly give them a look.On the supernatural: ID says nothing of the supernatural. ID does say that if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. Why are people afraid of that? Objective science lets the evidence lead. Therefore I can conclude that people like RAZD are afraid of objective science.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:

---

MrHambre:
We don’t require a supernatural designing entity to explain such former mysteries as the seasons, heredity, earthquakes, diseases, rainbows, tides, magnetism, mountains, catastrophic weather, solar and lunar eclipses, identical twins, and so forth.

---

When did rational people use the supernatural to explain any of the above?

quote:

---

MrHambre:
It’s certainly a believer’s prerogative to ascribe any of these to the will of a supernatural being, but the burden of proof would be on him if he expects us to share his suspicion that nature acting alone is inadequate to account for any scientific phenomenon.

---

Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being. Nature acting alone didn't build the cities archeologists study.OK MrHambre please show us the evidence that nature, acting alone, brought forth life from non-life. Right now all we do know is that life only comes from life. YOU are going against our knowledge. That means you have to provide evidence for your faith. I understand that you can't do that. I also understand the many failings of materialistic naturalism. It's not your fault. It is time to admit it is all just a belief system.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behe isn't an ID Creationist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
So he believes that nature alone can create life?

---

I don't know.

quote:

---

LM:
Or does he think that God was responsible? Which do you think it is?

---

I don't know and it is of no concern of ID.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of any ID Creationists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
Look in the mirror.

---

I am not an ID Creationist. Not by any rational definition anyway.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is your positive evidence that nature acting alone did all this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
Sitting out there waiting to be tested through the scientific method. Every year we come closer to the answer, why stop now?

---

At least you have faith in your faith. BTW we aren't getting closer. The more we know the more we realize nature didn't do it acting alone. And where did nature come from?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did nature come from?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
For science, it doesn't matter.

---

You keep saying that as if it were true.

quote:

---

LM:
All that matters is that nature is testable through emperical data.

---

Nature may be, but the theory of evolution is not. What is the empirical data that shows procaryotes evolved into eucaryotes? How about the data on the evolution of metazoans?

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"