ID as Religion

I don't think that that is quite accurate. Here are the defs again... Neither are simply not natural, then supernatural. These appear to be more positive claims of an EXISTENCE OUTSIDE the natural. Such that we identify the natural world, and a boundary into a "supernatural" world, or "supernatural forces".Only the second would be softer in that it includes "seems". But I think that is a little too shaky to hang one's hat on, as your example shows. Not only do I agree with the above, that's WHY I'm disagreeing with you. You have made the labelling of "supernatural" and so religion, so fluid and subjective that it becomes a multi-edge blade capable of criticizing everything.Its not just Buz and whatever, but ID Theorists that make the same attack on evolutionary mechanisms and abiogenesis. According to your theory then... they are right?It seems to me everyone is getting it wrong.Until one posits "some unknown force beyond nature or natural laws did it", therefore to an entity that by its nature cannot be described or tested at some point, I don't believe one is making a religious or "supernatural" claim.I can't accept a watering down that "a force or mechanism we have not discovered yet may have been involved" becomes labelled as "supernatural"."Unlikely", okay. "Unconvincing", okay. "Religion", no. Well, not exactly. I have been upfront the whole time stating that IDIOT Theory is being USED as a religion. The problem is that they are using... as IDMan points out... an actual possible scientific research program called ID as a legal shield.It is their strength in the courtrooms, but I think it is also the chink in their armor in the real world and in the classroom.Accept that it IS what it purports to be... and indeed some may even be totally behind that actual theory. Some writing certainly does follow along with it.Then move into it as all scientists would and REVIEW IT. Those using the purported ID theory as a shield would be removed as it would be clear where they are NOT sticking in practice to their own stated scientific program.That way you are free to use the critique you have given, but narrowly focused on individual ID proponents and mechanisms and not ID itself (which has been crafted to avoid the label of religion). Heheheh... You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. And that's the key. Okay so ID CAN be scientific. There is the first question: criteria for identification. They haven't made it past that at all.The few attempts have been weak to worthless, and the best one has already been countered by real life examples.Great, it's scientific, but it simply does not work yet. Thus evolution remains the prominent scientific theory for species diversity. Yes, let them teach that in schools. And we can't get to the third either. You'll note in Behe's book that he cautions people not to skip ahead and that much more research has to be done.But those looking for God in a beaker have hopped skipped and jumped at hearing the "possibility" that ID might have "metaphysical implications" to actually talking about the implications and are trying to then write backward to the first step. Too bad for them. I noticed he answered the two posts I didn't write to him so he could make it look like I never said anything he had to actually deal with.My guess is he's already spent his two pennies.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In another ID thread, someone posted this link to a former IDIOT theorist, that is leaving the fold because he wasn't YEC enough.It was a shocking read, and not simply why he was kicked out. CLEARLY the guy getting kicked out had already left the scientific fold well before he left ID.He is a perfect example of ID as religion. So here you have perfect evidence for what you laid out in your first post. And the fact that he is getting kicked out of ID by upper ups for not being MORE SO, is damning to the movement as a whole.But then in courts and legislatures they manage to pull a curtain around themselves and leave only the noncreationist nonreligious portions. And then use evo criticism of ID theory as religious as evidence evos are biased.I think it'd be much easier to use evidence like the above to show your point hits the mark with the IDIOT MOVEMENT AT LARGE, and so blast away much of the adherents and literature, rather than focusing on such a general thing as ID itself.Does this make sense? You can't catch a general theory with its pants down, but you can catch individuals that way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps you are having a hartd time understanding. I will slow it down for you.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).One cannot use one's own analogies to "prove" it is working.2) ONLY AFTER that, can this be applied to organisms. Criteria proven as a reliable standard, THEN application. IDIOTs (including Behe) have not done the work to get the criteria extablished and instead jump to this category: application. If you have any knowledge of a quantified measure of SC, or "information" being used to detect a manufactured biological entity from a nonmanufactured one in some test of the criteria, please let me know. I have not read that specific book, but I will look for it and read it.But before I do can you tell me how it differs from the work set up by Behe and Dembski? That is using "information" or "specified complexity".And are you saying that this book includes citations of experiments which have shown that this criteria has been able to differentiate between designed and nondesigned organic structures? If so, maybe you could share some of those citations before I get the book? Well we can begin by noting that you have said you are not on board with common descent. Without further explanation that seems to be a major disconnect between the two of you.But we can move beyond that. If you are trying to imply that Behe has disproven, or suggested that he has called into question standard evolutionary theory's mechanisms at all, then I suggest you reread Behe. Specifically Darwin's Black Box.He acknowledges that once complex organs and organisms exist, that it would be just about impossible to determine if a thing was IC or not. Thus evolutionary mechanisms are NOT invalidated, ESPECIALLY at the level of eukaryotes which is what we are talking about, and the limit of that method for detection is capped. Oh, then I must be wrong.Perhaps you can explain to me how you determine the teleological purpose of an organism based solely on the knowledge that a certain part of that organism has been designed?For example, let's say that the flagellum of a certain bacteria was proven to have been designed. I mean for the purposes of this hypothetical there simply is no question about this from any corner of science.What then was the reason the designing entity created that structure? Or failing that, what would you NEED to know to make such a determination? I have already stated that ID itself does not, that it is the people running ID which are. Perhaps you are having problems reading my posts?That said, what IDIOTs do with ID theory proper, does have a bearing on the state of ID as a whole. IDIOTs are wasting time jumping to the next two issues instead of working on the first. As a consequence there is currently no set of established and proven criteria for detecting design, and that is a major problem for ID as a theory. That's funny because I am reading your posts, and I have read works by Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, and more... Are these not IDists.I mean I know they are all actually IDIOTs and not true ID theorists, but I assume you would be refering to them as ID theorists.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Correct, which is why questions are raised when people like Dembski right books on the connection between ID and the Xian Bible. Or people like Steve Jones and Phil Johnson readily refer to the designer as God and make no bones about their connection to the Xian God. You are both mistaken. I'm not sure why schraf thought you had to study a culture to identify design... those would be too different fields. Forensics vs Archeology.That said, until you have criteria (established and proven criteria) you cannot move on toward an archeological style investigation of an entity. That is what was its purpose for the designer. That may be true. But studying an airplane you will discover that it's purpose was to fly through the air, and more than that to carry humanoids as a form of transportation through the air.Thus we know that the designer(s) was humanoid in shape and at least in part incapable of longterm flight and so needed an object to do so.You will also be able to come up with a number of mechanisms that the designer(s) used to build the object, as well as where the parts came from.Now let's return to ID. Supposedly the flagellum was designed. How do we get from that to statements that humans were the teleological goal of this designer and that (apparently) it is the goal to be good Xian republicans.I'm a fervent reader of ID material, especially the discovery institute. You can't pull the wool over my eyes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is where you guys have it all wrong.What is being said is that the most reasonable, logical area to focus investigation is purely mechanical phenomenon on the materials present, until there is positive evidence for intentional mechanisms having been used and even better positive evidence for there being designers beyond humans.We don't know the mechanical mechanisms responsible for a phenomenon is NOT the same as positive evidence intentional mechanisms were employed.And as I said, when we are talking about hyperadvanced designers as is required by ID, one would like to see at least some evidence for such a thing besides the circular argument "life is evidence." In a way that could be true. But we ought to wait until that time and not assume the possibility of such a thing makes such a thing plausible.Indeed, many things including the discovery of an advanced designer would not necessarily refute methodological naturalism (that is the correct term by the way). And there is no such guarantee that that discovery would remove MATERIALISM.I am still at a loss for how such self-proclaimed sceptics assert the existence of entities beyond the material as such a possibility that they can be included in investigations which have barely scratched the surface of material explanations... designer or not. Given that the sun rises every morning, it is a pretty good assumption it will rise again tomorrow. The possibility that the sun does not actually rise, but is a figment of our perspective does not make a chariot carrying a flaming torch more likely.The revelation that the sun actually does not rise, but instead that the illusion it does is a product of our standing on a rotating planet, neither undercuts methodological naturalism, nor materialism.Yet all along a person could have claimed that the possibility of the chariot was there and any questions were "controversies" within natural explanations.In a similar fashion, the only experiences we have had in this life, which have been studied and DOCUMENTED, are of natural processes.While it may turn out that our current understanding of mechanisms driving biological life may turn out to be inaccurate, there is every reason to trust that they will continue to function as they do today when tomorrow comes, and that they did the same yesterday as well.The idea of a chariot carrying in new kinds or mechanics to fix kinds, just does not seem like a valid plausible theory.And in the case we discover that mechanisms other than the ones we know of now are in play, it is more than likely (given the pattern of history) that they will remain natural mechanisms.Even a designer will more than likely have worked through a natural mechanism... and it would be absurd to assume otherwise until evidence accumulates towards that end.Doesn't this make sense to you?Don't you see that the only reason to overturn methodological naturalism, is in order to make a conclusion plausible where it logically would not be. That in fact that shows such a severe lack of faith that they need to undercut reason to try and get a conclusion they think they must have accepted, accepted?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We definitely have moved off topic. But I will not start another thread. I've done that enough to have no ID person show up, or bother to address what I am talking about.If you want to start a thread on specifics of ID I will be more than happy to take part in it. I guarantee I will be there... unless I get hit by a car or something. Only to the ISCID rules, not the EvC ones. I did mention some specific parts of our debate were moving off topic. All the above noted, Dembski is pertinent to this thread. He clearly pulls ID into religion as do many (I'd say most) ID theorists.If the movement has pervasive references to the designer being supernatural and the Xian god in specific, if not the Bible in specific as a reliable text science must square with, then people like RAZD have a perfect reason for assuming that ID is religion based.The ID movement is big on pushing "the controversy" within evolutionary theory, yet the religion problem seems to be an even larger controversy within ID. If it is wholly nonreligious, why are so many pushing religion and even political agendas right along with the science.And remember I am not talking about what these guys are doing on their own time. They stitch religion directly to ID, with the promise that that ID is the gateway to allowing in theological implications. There is no guarantee of this whatsoever. To make such claims is to move out of science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Careful schraf. You have made two errors so far. There is no reason for ID to have to address the nature of a designer (though I agree that that makes there criteria a longer haul).And then there is... He said that nonnatural explanations would never be considered. This is not true, even under methodological naturalism. What happens is they won't get considered first, and until current natural mechanisms are exhausted.That is unless there is some positive evidence that a nonnatural designer or mechanism exists beyond "we can't tell what happened here".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ouch, you are making a mistake. ID is about the detection of design, so according to its own definition is NOT ABOUT learning about the designer.That would be the difference between forensics and archeology.Now there is no reason they cannot move into learning about the designer as an offshoot, or addendum, to ID. But ID itself (especially at this stage), is just about creating criteria for detecting design in a biological organism. That is the pickle for them. In nonbiological entities, or entities we know lots of things about, we can determine when our range of natural mechanisms have been exhausted.That is of course why they keep using analogies to things we know a lot about and have limited mechanisms. Certainly none of them were capable of change on their own over time, which even they admit biological organisms do. I'm onboard with this. That is why what they want to accomplish is so hard.But MN does NOT exclude such explanations from EVER being used or contemplated. I'm certain you can think of a scenario where nonmaterial mechanisms may be proven, or where purely mechanical mechanisms would appear the LEAST likely candidates.They are jumping the gun because such scenarios are not being observed. I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply saying that a scientist following MN will not exclude nonnatural mechanisms NO MATTER WHAT. Its not dogma, its simply technique regarding most logical possibilities and so focus of effort.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have got to be kidding me. That is your response to my saying in order to detect design you need an established criteria?Science is the process of revealing what nature acting alone can or can't do.We don't have to create criteria to determine whether mechanics are happening, we can see them happening. YOU will have to define criteria which separates random physical mechanics from nonrandom mechanics.I have a hard time believing that ID theorists propose that all phenomona are miraculous intelligence driven phenomenon until proven otherwise.That would just about violate everything in Behe's book. Weak IDMan weak. That's about as good as "yeah, so are you."

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Lamer by the second.Splitting hairs, there would be a difference between natural mechanisms and "nature acting alone did it", though both would fall under the term natural processes.Let us make sure we both mean that natural process will refer to "mechanical processes unguided by an intelligence"... that is a bit more descriptive than "nature acting alone did it".That said, given your own def, I am not wrong. Please give me ONE and I'll accept even just ONE phenomenon that has been studied and DOCUMENTED as having a supernatural or "guided process" from something OTHER than a very material intelligence.You can find phenomena that are as yet unstudied, or with no documented evidence of what natural mechanism was a cause, but there has been NO documented case with POSITIVE EVIDENCE of anything beyond natural processes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I do, deal with me.I have pointed out repeatedly, to your continuing silence, that Dembski has written a book directly connecting the Bible and ID. Someone in another thread has pointed this out to you once again.While you can say ID is not every ID theorist, and this is true, when major players (such as Dembski) directly tie the two together that certainly raises questions and gives honest people an honest reason to make the connection.I mean what are they supposed to do when Behe says one thing inside a book, and Phil Johnson and Dembski say quite the opposite inside books as well as right on the covers.Just as IDIOTs claim there is a controversy about evo, there appears to be a much deeper one within ID. There is NOT a consistent statement on whether ID is directly religious or not.You must deal with this apparent contradiction. If it is to disavow the liked of Dembski and Johnson, well that would be a step in the right direction but it better have some real teeth.And in another thread, and equally avoided, you said that the rejection of common descent would put a person in the creationist camp. I pointed out that you have already said you do not agree with common descent.Are you going to spin... I mean comment... on this problem, or shall I take your silence as an admission I am right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I hope this isn't a case of when the going gets tough the tough get going... out of here.If you are leaving IDman, is this the part where we all get to laugh at you as you claimed people at that ID forum would laugh at us?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't understand your fixation with the court's 3 point test for religion.1) Tests can change with time. If the courts feel a religious message is getting through in spite of the criteria they can judge the criteria incomplete and devise new ones.2) There is a definitional difference between teaching "a religion" and teaching "a pseudo-scientific program designed to support religion", but both would be problematic. As the ID movement creates a new niche for pushing religion into school (or good science out), it may be found to be invalid whether it is "a religion" or "supporting religion". In another thread you said they were asking how did we get here. In this thread you not only have changed the purpose but also altered that of evolution. What does evolution have to do with asking about the "appearance of design"?The matter pertaining to evolution was the general mechanism responsible for species DIVERSITY.And I will point out once again, you have missed the actual question of pure ID theory. The question is how do we indentify (what are testable criteria for detecting) design in biological and nonbiological organisms?If it is asking how did biological entities acquire the appearance of design, it is already waking away from science. This supports my point. So you are saying that evidence of design would inherently suggest the supernatural? Why would it not simply suggest design by some other material beings, or non supernatural anyway, designing specific parts?Assumptions and agendas are clearly frontloaded into IDIOT theory, more than they are into biological organisms. This is true. However when they are designed not just to coincide with a religion, but attack alternative theories with much greater weight, because the alternative theories are thought not to coincide with religion... that is something else altogether. I want you to explain what the Discovery Institute is, what the writings on its website (discovery.org) are about, and why one should believe the above when ID leaders repeatedly claim that evolutionary theory and materialism is leading to moral problems in society which ID will repair.That is also part of congressional records when they took part in a hearing on ID. Yes, ID doesn't. But IDIOT theory does. When one gets into "inference" as the main criteria one is not letting evidence lead. When one is talking about teleogy past the specific designed part, one is inviting the supernatural.I love how IDIOTs keep shrugging their shoulders and saying "if the evidence leads to the metaphysical so be it", when their entire stated point is that evolutionary theory has led to some possible metaphysical interpretations they don't like which is why they invented ID.If this were true then there would be no discussion of religion at all. You have still avoided addressing Dembski's book on the link between ID and Xian theology. He is one of the biggest ID leaders, and that was a book ABOUT ID theory.Personally I don't have a reason to dismiss the supernatural nor support wholly materialist world views. I do however have a stake in good science. If ID stuck to pure ID there'd be no problems.My question is why are IDIOT theorists STATING that they are afraid of the metaphysical implications of evolution, so much that they are willing to start a pseudo-science, and then act as if they don't care about metaphysical implications just to get it into schools?{edited in...}Missed one. Could you explain how the concept of IC is part of well-established scientific method?ID is an isolated teaching... I mean it would have to be because it hasn't even proved itself to science yet. Who is teaching something that is not even a complete working model (even Behe and Dembski and Ratzsch say this)?Oh yeah, isolated to Judeo-Xian homeschoolers and Judeo-Xian science teachers.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-26-2004 05:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

None of those are living organisms. So we see living organisms creating complex nonliving organisms. Your point? Hahahahahahaha. You realize this contradicts itself right?You are correct in saying only life comes from life, but only from sexual or asexual reproduction. Have you evidence of anything created? And no, one not completely explained flagellum does not count. At BEST that says that one feature may have been programmed in for some temporal purpose. It does not begin to suggest the entire organism (life) was programmed.In addition we do know about things like viruses and prions that straddle "life" and could be precursors. We simply don't have the requisite knowledge about complex or selfduplicating chemical systems to make statements about what COULD NOT be. This is completely against what Ratzsch wrote. You have said that you agree with Ratzsch. Do you or don't you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Moving what goalposts? And so am I to believe that if a court rules that ID is a form of creationist mumbojumbo you will support that authoritative ruling? That didn't answer what I wrote. I pointed out that rules change, even court "tests". It may be that tests become extended to include programs which go beyond simply "coinciding" to having as their "purpose" harmonizing with tenets of religion. Pseudo science has been described elsewhere. Your quote is not the definitive answer in what is or is not pseudo-science. If it will help debate I will not argue about whether to call it pseudoscience.It is clear that the purpose of ID was to remove a specific scientific theory or "model" from being taught in schools, at least exclusively and unchallenged, since it had metaphysical implications theists did not like.If ID is a scientific program you may wish to explain why it is interested in not having evolutionary theory models taught in school, indeed "teach the controversy" is the watchword. This is not a proper scientific attitude, and odd since even Behe admits ID is not a completed model.Why would it be important to challenge the teaching of a major scientific model, and push a specific new one that is not yet a complete model? I am not confusing anything. Please address Dembski's book which ties ID theory and theology together.I agree and have stated it could be pursued in a purely scientific fashion. The fact that it is not by the major leaders of ID and is pushed in a direction opposite of pure science by these same people, is not my fault. You missed my point. Noting that some parts of life look like they could have been designed, is not the same as trying to figure out why they appear that way. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to answer that question. I realize you are under fire from many different posters, but please try to keep this straight. My name is Holmes and my position that pure ID can be scientific and have pointed out (in defense of this) that aliens and other advanced technologies can be used to explain the design.Given this, your premise that I don't understand ID has been disproven.Now to address my point against your position. It is clear that some members of ID are pushing for religion and not aliens as the answer. Your own statements keep defaulting to supernatural origins of design.How can ID be said to support anyone's religious beliefs? Especially if you honestly grant aliens and superior technology? Shouldn't you be saying that ID has no further metaphysical implications beyond noting that some features have been designed and so there may have been modifications of living organisms in the past? Only an opinion? Evolutionary theory, even if all mechanisms have not been explained, does present a model for speciation and the fossil record. ID theory has no model at all, much less an explanation of mechanisms.Even Behe admitted it is not complete. What he was discussing was mechanisms hidden within the overt macroscopic evolutionary model, and so clearly evolutionary theory is quite weighty. Of course on the other side of ID are Wells and Dembski that have no model at all and deny common descent. Where is the model? Without a model and with some within ID supporting evolutionary models, how can ID be said to be have more weight?Oh by the way, that is also against what Ratzsch said. I have no idea. What does it matter? Over 70% of the US believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that is 100% false. Popularity does not mean something has scientific weight.Besides I might note that theist evolutionists actually agree with evolution. You are confusing differences over mechanisms with evolutionary theory itself. Might I ask how many of these have said that ID is the actual theory?How many scientists question the validity of ID theory? Oh yes that would include worldwide scientists. Why? I do not believe in Intelligent Design Inference and Organic Teleological theory.I'm what would be called an evo, or evilutionist, or popular by IDIOTs: Darwinist.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)