ID as Religion

ID as Religion

• Definitions
• ID Premises
• Argument
• Conclusion

---

First these definitions:

(Only the definitions used are given here, see links for remainder)

Supernatural adj. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

God n. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):

1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Religion n. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

---

The ID premises:

from Wikipedia.com: Intelligent Design (click, bold in the original): (*)

The intelligent design (ID) movement is a body of belief that states that life and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent. Specifically, the conjecture focuses on the 'what' of the origin of life on Earth, i.e. saying that it is not possible for 'non-living' matter to become 'living' matter (with the level of organization that is observed today) without intervention.

​

Advocates of ID believe there is empirical evidence that an Intelligent Designer has been at work in the history of life, and that macroevolution of life, and particularly the evolution of humans, has been guided by that Designer.

​

Proponents of intelligent design point to complex biological structures arguing that such structures could not possibly have developed due purely to random mutations, even with the aid of natural selection.

​

(Note: also see Irreducible Complexity at Wikipedia (click).(*)

Essentially what the primary premise comes down to this: if you cannot {find\develop\show} a natural explanation for a process or feature, then you must assume an outside agent was involved in the design and implementation of that process or feature. You could invert this to say that if a design explanation is true then there is no natural explanation that is true.A secondary premise is that if there is a designer involved in {the features and processes of life and the universe} then evidence of that design can be discovered through scientific means. In other words, if a designer is involved there exists an "x" such that a design explanation of "x" is true.This article does not discuss the logical validity of these two premises, but I don't think I have misrepresented what the ID movement position is.(*) Note that Wikipedia is in continuous update, and what is quoted here may not be what it says anymore on the linked page. This can be a little frustrating for those looking for complete definitions and references, but this really means is that the information is the most up-to-date on the webpage. Please notify me of any changes you find, so that I can keep this up-to-date as well.

---

The Argument

Let us call this designer a "design being" and see where logic, the ID premises and the word definitions given above lead us (this argument is summarized from a more detailed version that is available on request):

​
... ID premise 2:
​
1. IF {a design being is involved} is true THEN {there exists an "x" such that only a design explanation of "x" will do} is true
   ​
   ... ID premise 1:
2. IF {there exists an "x" such that only a design explanation of "x" will do} is true THEN {all natural explanations of "x" will not do} is true
   ​
   ... by logic
3. IF {all natural explanations of "x will not do} is true THEN {a NOT natural explanation of "x"} is true
   ​
   ... by definition of supernatural given above
4. IF { a NOT natural explanation of "x" is true } THEN {a supernatural explanation of "x"} is true
   ​
   ... by logic
5. IF {a supernatural explanation of "x"} is true THEN {a being causing x used supernatural powers or attributes to do "x"} is true
   ​
   ... by definition of god given above
6. IF {a being causing x used supernatural powers or attributes to do "x"} is true THEN {the being is a god} is true
   ​
   ... and therefore:
7. IF {a design being is involved} is true THEN {the being is a god} is true
   

---

My Conclusions

The concept of ID is a formalized belief in a designer, because of the effort that has gone into formalizing it by the proponents.Any formalized belief in a designer is necessarily a formalized belief in a god (by the argument given above).Therefore the concept of ID is a formalized belief in a god.We can quibble about the relative abilities and attributes of this ID god (or gods) compared to others, but the fact remains that this being is at least a lesser god (if not the "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" type God). This puts the ID god(s) at least at the power and attribute level of the gods of various polytheistic religions of old. There can be one god designer or several god designers, it still doesn't matter to their godhood.Any formalized belief in a god or gods is a religion by definition (see 1.a. above: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.").Therefore the concept of ID is a Religion.Q.E.D.

---

Enjoy.{{edited to reduce size}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-02-2004 04:04 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 09-02-2004 04:25 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 21:05 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It helps to read the master. Yes this is one place that is a little weak, but it is still a natural explanation, just extended. The difference between this and the usual ID approach is that they have this work being done over interstellar distances in the blink of an eye, which is certainly beyond current "natural" explanations.A natural explanation is one consistent with the understanding of physics, chemistry, astronomy, evolution, etc ... or, to quote another "master" with our understanding of "life, the universe, and everything" (D. Adams)Any of the top 3 and 7th definitions here
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naturalThanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes the "lobster quadrille" dance of the sub-atomic particles in and out of existence, changing "partners" as they go can be a dance into and from another dimension, where all the "probability" particles exist in that 3D+T+1 universe, a dimension that could shortcut things.But I am not convinced yet on "entanglement" as what I see is just confirmation of the conservation laws. Two particles are separated by great distances, you measure one, then the other and yes the conservations laws are confirmed. I would need both measured, and then action on one creating "spooky" action on the other. Confirm the action, if you see what I mean.I saw you’re #6 and disagree: it is a religious faith. This is my third independent argument on it. The first is on "is ID properly pursued" where I show that ID is between Deism and other faiths in their beliefs and the second is on "Who designed the ID designer(s)" where the possible options are evaluated, and supernatural beings, gods, are the only valid conclusion.This one says that the definitions of the words as we use them mean that what they describe as evidence of design is necessarily of a supernatural origin and thus relies on faith in that supernatural ability to explain. This is true whether those beings are physical or not, for there is no difference in the ID faith in their ability than there is in, say the Greek religious beliefs in the actions and abilities of many physically incarnate gods. The abilities are attributed to the beings based on faith and faith alone, for they are not explained any other way.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and both done in such a way that no evidence of it exists. to be "frontloaded" the genetic strands of the first life would have to have included all subsequent "designs" with mthods to switch them on at the appropriate time. There is no evidence that the first life was that big. Thus, no natural explanation for either mechanism to work means a supernatural explanation is required and we are back on the faith track.The vocabulary may have been purged as much as possible, but the inference of faith is irrepressible.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Your last line has me intrigued. Please explain?To the first I start with the same argument that I gave kendermeyer on {abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist}
http://EvC Forum: abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist Change that god to a designer and created to designed and the {front-loading} is the organic compounds that will naturally come together to develop life wherever the proper conditions exist. One would need to show something more than personal incredulity as a reason for picking a point in the sequence and saying Here! It was here that it all started! (And one could argue too that designing a first cell doesn’t say that evolution is wrong, as all it requires is life, not the start of it — anything that goes before that does not need to be in public school science classes on evolution, but that is a separate issue).This is definitely getting to the supernatural ability to design the whole universe (or the visible patches of it), so what we need to cover is the middle ground. Assume a being that designs the first living cell. As that being could not be composed of living cells it fits our definition of non-natural, and making something that had never existed before with the ability to become many different forms of life is certainly on the omniscient scale of abilities that I would see as supernatural. Moving inwards towards the present the ability of a designer to accomplish the design projects and remain undetected become necessarily a supernatural ability.Next we would need to assume an organic designer that was intimately familiar with cellular life, depositing such a cell on the primordial earth and departing.In one case this would be accidental contamination with no design intent, and thus is not evidence of design, just sloppy behavior (as we may have committed on Mars etc): this does not fit the concept I have of front-loaded or intent. Nor does this mean that human life was inevitable, for the contaminator could have been more like our dinosaurs or what they would have become sans meteor. We can omit this scenario from consideration because it adds to neither side of the argument.In a second the cellular life has been manipulated to specifically interact with the earth environment, and then sent or set down to first transform the earth environment and then to transform itself to carry on the task of becoming all it can be. Again I would have to claim omniscient knowledge of future events to know that it would inevitably lead to us (such as knowledge of a major meteor impact 65 million years ago but nearly 3 billion years after the cell is set free).THUS, If life was pre-loaded into a simple life sent to earth from afar, it must have taken supernatural omniscience to know that after 3.5 billion years we would arise and take the place designated for us.I don’t mean to be didactic about it, but I think if you follow the argument to the logical conclusion, that wherever you start with the ID argument, you will sooner or later come into a need for a supernatural ability or force to accomplish that end, and by our poor limited human understanding, that means a god.(boy am I getting wordy on this)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

We may be arguing the same thing. And perhaps it comes down to word nuances. {I mowed the lawn yesterday and have an allergy attack today, so I may be a little muddled today. (I can just see Seinfeld on lawns — does anybody know why we have them? A topic for a new thread )} I think we can agree that it must be tweaks and mechanisms and processes that are beyond our understanding of the natural universe. That if it is to be scientific that it has to be based on evidence and theory and test and validation before it can add to our understanding of natural processes. Relying on explanations outside of that current understanding is necessarily believing in a supernatural explanation by definition. This is the lowest denominator faith and supernatural usage but is consistent with ancient beliefs that gods controlled weather and the like (the fact that most people are now used to a much higher standard of supernatural in their faiths does not diminish those early usages or the use of the words as defined). At its most basic supernatural means anything not consistent with our current scientific understanding of life, the universe, and everything even though that understanding may (will) grow and change. As you say, taking the leap before the evidence, is faith in the other side existing.I have not read much Behe, for I have trouble suffering through bad arguments (cannot listen to shrub without having to tell the TV what an pathological idiot he seems to be, loudly). I may need to make another attempt .The common IDeist assumptions of earth and our biological style of life and particularly human existence is to me, one of the biggest logical failings of ID as it is practiced, and I address this issue in the {is ID properly pursued} thread.
EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?Enough for now. Thanks for you input btw, it is helpful.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes, and it is a logical position that others would be advised to follow. However, many do not see the logical end of the ID argument nor that it necessarily contradicts any mainstream faith.Perhaps some summer reading ... :sigh:heh

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Again you stray off the topic into another little venting session. You have provided NO argument that the conclusions in the OT are not valid. This either means that you are incapable of doing so or that you are reluctant to address the actual issue involved here.Sigh. This has already been addressed elsewhere and you have yet to show that the arguments refuting this statement are invalid. For further comment on this issue go to the {ID and contradictions to other faiths} topic:
http://EvC Forum: ID and contradictions to other faithsThat some people do not see the inherent contradictions between IDeism and many other faiths is not my fault.Okay, now, can you tell me how is demonstrated by this: Because it sure looks to me like that is just exactly what I said: "Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain ... Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation" versus: Can you tell me what the differences are in those two positions? Truly I am curious to know how one contradicts the other.And I love this typical misrepresentation: ONLY according to the interpretation by the author of a book actively promoting ID, and NOT based on an actual legal judgement by the Ninth Circuit (Court? Federal? -- is that the Supreme Court?).I went to your forum board and I see that Dembski is a "regular" (who are the moderators?) so it may be fun indeed.And, btw? Nothing you have posted has "refuted" the OT, it didn't even address it, and your opening comment is another "appeal to authority" without the authority being established. You really need to get over that habit. Looks like the OT conclusion is still valid.{as a side note, the UBB codes need to be nested to work (both b's outside both i's or vice-versa) just like parenthesis in programing.}Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

still haven't seen any evidence, just the assertion of evidence. I can claim the sky is yellow, but until I actually provide evidence that it is, all I have given is an assertion. This is refuted by Deism being a religion, yet they do not worship or give services. This has been discussed before on other threads and this same argument failed there just as it fails here, because it does not address the issues of the OT. Now we get to the Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) logical fallacy.
ForbiddenIf you can't prove the argument wrong attack the source.IDeism is faith based, it is based on the faith that "somebody did it" and everything you have given has so far either (1) validated that position or (2) not addressed that position.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-09-2004 01:25 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

AND now we resort to the strawman argument.
ForbiddenFrom Deism - Wikipedia Deism is a religion. It is regarded as one by people outside the faith, and recognized as an important contributing factor to the way the founding fathers thought.You might also want to look at a Deist website, so that you can educate yourself about the issue:
Organisation Mondiale du Disme
http://www.deism.org/mission.htm (yellow for emphasis)Who knows, you might move up from IDeist to Deist ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Again, assertion of the negative in the face of evidence to the positive is not a refutation, but just stubornness.Whether you like it or not the conclusion of the OT of this topic is that IDeism is a religion. Until such time as you choose to challenge that position all your bluster and bombast comes to naught.AND whether you like it or not, Deism is a religion. Or are you going to start insulting Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine? Ethan Allen?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

All of these issues have already been addressed and shown to be logical fallacies or false assertions. Repeating falsities does not improve their validity.Until you come up with something new, I have other work to do, and will get back to the rest of your blathering loater.In the meantime I suggest you review all previous answers and see if you can say something different. Maybe even try your hand at actually answering the OT -- here it is for your convenience:
http://EvC Forum: ID as ReligionEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You are correct there -- that is a major fallacy: a strawman argument.
Forbidden That is NOT what evolution claims at all, therefore refuting it is (again) beside the point: the argument is false. It would appear that your knowledge of evolution is as bad as your knowledge of logic ... to say it is rudimentary would be a compliment based on the evidence provided so far. And yet, there still has not been evidence provided. Isn’t it amazing, that for all your bluster and bombast and ad hominem attack (another logical fallacy if you can remember that far back ... to the last post), and your continued fallacy of appeal to authority, you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence or a single valid point of argument -- and that is without (yet) addressing the information in the OTForbidden
Forbidden Just so you know, this is another logical fallacy, for the validity of an argument does not matter on the venue where it is presented, just as it does not depend on the person presenting it, but on the truth and logic of the argument itself. I may well get to your pet board to see how it is run, but if you expect laughter as a result then I suspect that the moderators will already have their minds made up. We will see. And by the way, this is another logical fallacy argument, the Appeal to ConsequencesForbidden You keep stating this as if you have to convince yourself to keep going. In point of fact I have shown it to be religion, specifically in the first post on this thread (the OT), and you have yet to address that post. All your pompous pronouncements purporting otherwise, and until you do, the argument stands unchallenged, and the conclusion is a valid conclusion.Enjoy{{edit, finally to fix background color ... lots of timeouts}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-09-2004 09:43 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Tell you what -- have ID man address the first post (and not whatever he thinks is applicable) with a clear counter argument.The first post is a logical argument that shows ID to be a religion, and UNLESS that argument is challenged it does not matter what he says, what he thinks, what he feels, even what evidence he brings to the table: the validity of a logical argument stands until it is challenged and refuted. The concept that "ID is a Religion" is falsifiable by showing the argument to be erroneous. That has not been done, it has not even been attempted.We can take it step by step, starting with: Is the definition of supernatural correct. Yes or No. If no, why not, with evidence not assertion.note - I will be on the road for a few days, and may be delayed in answering.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Okay, let’s look at this issue first. The definition in the dictionary is pretty straightforward: whatever is not natural is supernatural. But when we go beyond what we know is natural we get into a gray area: what we can see as probably having a future natural explanation, what we can see as possibly having a future natural explanation, what we think would be unlikely to have a future natural explanation, and things we would be pretty sure would not have a natural explanation (say a large hand reaching down from the sky ...). Where an individual would draw these lines would vary from person to person according to their individual beliefs (usually religious, but they could be nebulous superstitions).So let’s say for argument here that supernatural to an individual is anything that he cannot possibly foresee having a natural explanation. Thus I can say that I foresee a natural explanation for abiogenesis, so it is a natural process in my opinion, but that someone like buzz or willow cannot foresee abiogensis being a natural process so it is a supernatural process in their opinion. If we run this definition through the argument I still get the same result.If this does not narrow it down enough for you, what would you suggest? (and likewise for ID man -- if this definition is not okay what would you do with it?) This is bending off the topic, as it is looking at what ID purports to do without looking at what it is.I would say that the first question is problematical, as this has not been established. Certainly some have claimed to have a method (IC for instance), but when we look at them we find that the conclusions of design are usually ones of ignorance of the natural mechanisms (usually produced with statements of incredulity, like "how could that possible happen"), and we also find that there are IC systems that have been produced by natural means (and thus the existence of any IC system is not proof of a designed feature).Thus we cannot scientifically get to the second question until the first has been established as a scientific principle. As yet I see no method to positively and irrefutably differentiate intentional design from accidental design or from the appearance of design (the example I’ve used for this is the kaleidoscope - from one end a pretty pattern, from the other the actual random jumble is visible) due to too little information.That said, I want to stay on topic, [color=gold]and in particular, I don’t want to go beyond the question of the definition of supernatural at this point -- until ID man has the opportunity to provide his two-cents worth.[/gold]Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}