ID as Religion

quote:

---

RAZD, you haven't presented anything that shows ID is a religion. I have shown that ID is evidence based, which in and of itself refutes your wish that ID be faith-based.

---

What evidence? If current natural theories can not explain a phenomena that does not mean that the phenomena is due to an intelligent agent. It could very well be due to a natural mechanism that has not been discovered. Given the track record of science using ONLY natural mechanisms and no interference from outside intelligent agents I would say that ID is a bankrupt method.

quote:

---

Bottom line is ID is based on observation, not faith.

---

So let's look at the argument.Premise: Life did not arise through natural mechanisms.
Observations: Nothing seen in nature prevents life from arising naturally.Premise: Information can not arise naturally.
Observations: New information arises in genetic systems through natural mechanisms.Premise: There is an outside intelligent agent capable of producing design in biological organisms.
Observations: No such intelligent agent has ever been observed. The presence of this intelligent agent is taken on faith.Ergo, your premises are contradicted or unsupported by observations.Next, you have to appeal to the supernatural for the inception of life. Another natural intelligence is not an option since this would be admitting that life can arise naturally. That is, to keep ID from being a religion you have to admit that life can arise naturally. If life can arise naturally then your theory is shot.

quote:

---

Again refusing to read about the evidence for ID will not make it go away.

---

Refusing to present it will not make it appear. This is a discussion board, not a recommended reading club. If you are going to make assertions you must support them yourself. Failure to do so negates your arguments and assertions.Perhaps you could answer this question for me. Can life arise anywhere in the universe through natural mechanisms and without the aid of an intelligent designer?

quote:

---

First tell us where those natural mechanisms (and nature itself) came from.

---

For science, it doesn't matter where natural mechanisms came from only that they are observable. Science works as long as the mechanisms hypothesized are testable and measurable, period. The law of gravity works if you are an athiest or a christian. The germ theory of disease works equally well for the athiest and the christian. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Abiogenesis theories put forth that the laws of chemistry resulted in life. It doesn't matter where those laws came from since they are part of nature.So, I will ask again and hopefully you won't duck the question this time. Can life arise through measurable, testable, natural mechanisms?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First tell us where those natural mechanisms (and nature itself) came from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It matters for this discussion.

---

Why?

quote:

---

LM:
Science works as long as the mechanisms hypothesized are testable and measurable, period.

​

ID man:Then the theory of evolution isn't science.

---

Natural selection has been observed and is testable. Random mutations have been observed and are testable. Evolution is science.

quote:

---

And there aren't any laws of chemistry that allow for life to arise from non-life by nature acting alone.

---

There is no dividing line between inorganic and organic chemistry. They are the same thing. Everything that the body can produce can be produced outside of that organism. Both nucleotides and amino acids have been produced through inorganic chemistry therefore negating the idea that only life can produce these chemicals. Can you name one chemical law that is broken by life arising from inorganic chemicals? I sure can't.

quote:

---

It all depends on what you are calling a "natural mechanism". If you are saying that my computer and its programs arose by natural mechanisms than sure life can arise by similar natural mechanisms. However we both know that my computer and its ptograms required something other than nature acting alone, therefore life requires more than nature acting alone.

---

So if it is not possible for life to arise without the intervention of an intelligent agent then, according to you, life must be the result of a supernatural being. Therefore, ID theory is a religion.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-09-2004 04:43 PM

quote:

---

Where and when? How can any rational person argue with Behe's logic and reasoning? When has anyone observed nature (outside of biology because since biological organisms are the debate...), acting alone, put together an IC system?

---

When has anyone ever seen a supernatural entity or intelligent agent other than humans put together an IC system?

quote:

---

"The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible"

---

Everything conceivable by the action of amino acid chains, yes. How is this a fallacy?

quote:

---

ID is based on positive evidence.

---

What positive evidence, other than supposed design, is there for the designer? I can use the same argument as IDers: It looks evolved therefore it must have evolved. Wow, what a simple argument based on positive evidence.

quote:

---

That evidence in biology is the molecular machines we do observe. It is the hardware and software that make up biological organisms.

---

Biology doesn't contain hardware and software, it is made up of chemical reactions, all of it. You are committing the major fallacy of analogy. You can not use an analogy as support, only illustration.

quote:

---

Or speech- you can put together the hardware but still some people can't talk. That is evidence also.

---

Speech isn't a chemical reaction therefore it is not analogous to biology.

quote:

---

No sir, you have done nothing to show ID is faith based.

---

I have, in a post above yours. According to ID theory, if nature alone can not produce life then it must have been produced by a supernatural deity. Therefore, ID theory is a religion. If ID theory posits that life can arise naturally without the intervention of a supernatural being then ID as an explanation for life is not needed.

quote:

---

That's it? LoL!!! Your deception (usual for evolutionists) is noted. What evolution are you talking about?

​

1) Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

---

This definition can apply to star evolution, mountain evolution, etc. I am talking about biological evolution.

quote:

---

2) Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

---

Observed. Concentrated sickle cell alleles in areas with endemic malaria.

quote:

---

3) Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

---

Observed speciation events. Observed ERV patterns in humans and apes. Atavisms, vestigial organs, nested heirarchies, etc. More than enough to qualify evolution as a theory based on observations and falsifialbe theories.

quote:

---

4) The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

---

Observed creation of beneficial alleles through random mutation. For example, the nylonase gene found in flavobacterium or a new isoform of hemoglobin that offers malarial resistance without the side effects of the sickle cell allele.

quote:

---

5) Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

---

All life shares commonalities not related to any type of design pattern seen in intelligent agents (namely humans).

quote:

---

6) Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

---

Since we can not test for a watch maker or falsify the presence of a watch maker we have to rely on testable, observable, and falsifiable mechanisms found in nature. These mechanisms, mutation and selection, are capable of changing physiology and morphology over time and hence are thought to be resposible for the biodiversity we see today.

quote:

---

Which one were you referring to?

---

All of them except the first definition which is too general.

quote:

---

Who are you? Organic does not equal life.

---

Organic MEANS life. Everything made in or by an organism can be made through other chemical means.

quote:

---

Whose idea was negated? Nucleotides/ sides and amino acids are not life.

---

But they are requisites for life as we know it and they can be produced in the absence of life. Therefore, the building blocks of life could have arisen naturally.

quote:

---

I am sure you can't name one [chemical law] that allows [life] either. I bet you can't name one that allows for life from organic chemicals.

---

Since nothing is preventing it, life is allowed. Nothing says that life MUST arise, but nothing is preventing it either. Nothing in aerodynamics says that flight is allowed, only that it isn't prevented.

quote:

---

If life arising from non-life is so easy surely they would have stumbled onto it in a lab by now.

---

Where did I say that it is easy? That is why it took about 500 million years for life to arise on Earth once it cooled off.

quote:

---

That is incorrect. Your logic is flawed. ID is evidence based.

---

Evidence is nothing unless I am able to test it and that it can be potentially falsified. For instance, if I hypothesized that a blue sky meant that aliens existed, could I count the blue sky as evidence? Of course not. Therefore, I would need to know what a designer WOULD NOT design, I need to know the mechanism by which the designer designed, and I need to know what tests to run to potentially falsify the affects of a designer. Without these ID is nothing buy pseudoscience used by politicians to further a religious goal.

quote:

---

Even if ID has metaphysical implications it does not make it a religion.

---

Without the interdiction of a supernatural force ID theory doesn't work, the same as any religion.

holmes,I know that you are not an ID proponent, but I thought I would make a few comments.

quote:

---

My problem was that you have equated religion with supernatural... and a very broad definition of supernatural at that.

---

But that is what religion is, belief through faith in the supernatural. ID theories rely on the same thing, the presence of an untestable supernatural being that is assumed to exist only through faith. ID theories also state that this supernatural being caused things to happen in the natural realm, which sinks ID even further into the religious ranks.

quote:

---

Certainly the initial questions raised by ID theory is thoroughly scientific and without any faith at all, faith in the supernatural in general, and faith in a religion in specific. These basic questions are:

​

1) What criteria can we (or do we) use to determine if something has been designed/built, rather than occuring naturally (ie, mechanical activity with no intent)?

​

2) If these criteria are applied to biological organisms/structures, do we find evidence of design (intent) in them?

​

And unfortunately for anyone taking those two questions seriously, the completely agenda driven masters of the IDIOT movement have added...

​

3) If we can see design, what implications does that have for us? As if these people can possibly move from one to the other.

---

And the question that IDists never ask:2b) Are there natural mechanisms capable of producing the design in question?Of course, real science has answered this question and does not need to ask anymore questions in the realm of ID theories.

quote:

---

But as the above questions show, there is not an inherent intent to have any specific mechanism, and there CAN BE truly innocent, perfectly scientific ID theorists.

---

I fully agree with you. Yet when Dembski is asked to apply his CSI definitions and equations to actual biology he refuses. This is why ID is such a frustrating theory to argue against, because it approaches scientific testability but backs away at the last second. For all of the bluster that Dembski spews forth he has yet to even attempt to test ID theory through the scientific method. He claims that complex specified information can be measured, yet he refuses to measure it. Behe claims that IC systems come about in one fell swoop, yet he never shows evidence of this happening. I know I am preaching to the choir, but sometimes I just need to vent.

quote:

---

But I am a stickler for accuracy, and pure ID is not religion.

---

And again, I totally agree with you. However, the problem that with current ID theories applied to biological systems are these claims:1) Information REQUIRES an intelligent agent.2) Life contain information.3) Therefore, biological organisms were created by an intelligent agent.This leaves ID theory nowhere to go except to the supernatural. If the first designer or original designer can not come about through natural mechanisms, then they must either be supernatural or created by a supernatural force. The only other options are natural beings who are able to move between universes or backward in time, but this runs into the same problem of relying on unobserved mechanisms supported solely through faith.Now, if ID theory were to state that life can arise through natural mechanisms then ID theory is no longer needed to explain the presence of life. If natural mechanisms are sufficient to create the first designers, then complexity can arise through natural mechanisms. And I can't imagine the first designers NOT having IC systems as part of the biological makeup. Therefore, without the supernatural ID theory can not operate.

Holmes,I muddied the waters a bit by not separating ID theory and the practice of ID theory by creationists. Sorry about that. I agree that ID theory itself does not require a supernatural being to exist, but I think we both agree that when creationists use the theory a supernatural being is assumed to be necessary. I can understand your frustration with the links made between religion and pure ID theory. Part of the problem is that "ID theory" is more of an evolutionist colloquial shorthand for the theory used by creationists.

quote:

---

For instance, it is plausible to imagine we could find an artifact that we could identify as having been designed by something other than human hands. If it was found on earth, there could be many questions as to mechanisms (if it has materials not common to earth at any time) of how it was made and how it got here. That would not undercut the fact that it was designed.

---

This very example is what has been going through my mind as well. Something like a laser gun just below the K/T boundary. Of course this would be indicative of a non-human intelligent being or culture, no doubt about it. However, as you already know, biological organisms that reproduce can not fit the same criteria as a laser gun.

quote:

---

Well that is what they are SUPPOSED to be looking for, and plausibly could. They will first have to come up with criteria for detecting design in a biological organism.

---

And even more importantly, how to detect non-design in biological organisms.

quote:

---

Yes. The evidence is life

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

As you frame your argument, metaphysical = supernatural. An inference should not lead to metaphysical questions. An infernce should lead to hypotheses based on emperical data. As Mr. Hambre pointed out, science is set up to eliminate the metaphysical not include it. However, religion always leads to the metaphysical which is another sign that ID is both religion and part of the creationist movement.Please answer this YES or NO. Does ID, as you present it on this website, require the existence of the supernatural? If you think a yes or no answer is unfair, please explain why.

quote:

---

Behe isn't an ID Creationist.

---

So he believes that nature alone can create life? Or does he think that God was responsible? Which do you think it is?

quote:

---

I don't know of any ID Creationists.

---

Look in the mirror.

quote:

---

Where is your positive evidence that nature acting alone did all this?

---

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

quote:

---

Where did nature come from?

---

For science, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that nature is testable through emperical data. You want to move the evidence away from nature to the supernatural but you have yet to show that the supernatural even exists. At least we know that nature exists. I might also ask where your designer came from.