ID as Religion

Hi RAZD.I think there may be a shortcoming in your argument. On the other hand this is right at the edge of my knowledge/competence (IOW I could just be talking out my backside ).Just so there is no confusion I'm not an IDer or any form of creationist, my observation is based purely on my understanding of your argument.

quote:

---

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

---

One of the things missing from your definitions is what constitutes a 'natural explanation'. Specifically does 'natural explanation' include something done by a technologically advanced civilisation. If it does then if you assume a sufficiently advanced level of technology then basically anything becomes possible - and so the supernatural element goes out the window. If it doesn't then as well as 'done by the supernatural' you have to have 'done by a mad scientist' as an alternative explanation to 'done by nature'.I'm going to try and give an example - it may not be 100% accurate but I hope it will convey the general idea I am trying to get across.IIRC the very first commercial genetically engineered product was bacteria genetically engineered by Eli Lilley to produce human insulin way back in 1982. Suppose that some of the original supply of bacteria (i.e. the unengineered strain) was preserved somehow, as was some of the engineered strain.After these two sets of bacteria are preserved the human race goes extinct - bummer Some time in the future another intelligent species evolves - or arrives from space - and finds these two sets of preserved bacteria. They analyse them and see that the change to produce human insulin could not have happened naturally. That's where I might be stretching it - I have no idea if the genetic engineering done does stick out as being artificial. For the sake of (my) argument assume it does.So there you have a situation where proof of a designed system is found but there is no need to involve a supernatural entity of any sort.I hope this conveys what I'm trying to get across - if not I blame it on the fact it's after four on the morning over here (Faron Young eat your heart out).

quote:

---

I think what you have here, in a long winded form, is Clark's third law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

---

Now why didn't I think of trying to phrase it in those terms !