ID as Religion

It is too bad that RAZD refuses to read about ID as written by IDists. Here is another book that refutes all that you have posted: [i][b]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/i][/b]This is what the ID asserts:
page 92 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.IDists come in all forms- Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Budhists, etc., so exactly what religion is ID? As I have posted elsewhere ID is based on observation. No faith required as it is evidence based. ID does not say anything about worship. ID says nothing about reverance or giving service to.ID also has philosophers of an obvious higher level than RAZD. We also have lawyers. And yes both have gotten together and have shown that ID is not a religion in the sense of any definition including that of the 9th circuit:"According to the Ninth Circuit's three part test, design theory should not be classified as religion." pg. 87 of Darwinism, Design and Public EducationIOW just because a theory has metaphysical implications does not make it a religion.My conclusion is that RAZD is full of poop. He uses Wikipedia to show what ID is and then HAS to add his 2 cents worth- very bad form.

quote:

---

RAZD:
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.

---

That is a misrepresentation RAZD.However IF you think you have something there is a place you can get laughed at, I mean present it:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html

---

"...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"

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.Now you can refuse to read the refutations in the book I mentioned but that does not make them go away. ID passes the Lemon test. ID is not a religion by any courts' definition. IOW all we have is your rantings. What do you appeal to, besides ignorance and stupidity?Again I will take the work of actual philosophers of science and lawyers when it comes to this, not yours. You would lose in a court of law or on any open-minded debate forum. I can live with that.Bottom line is ID is based on observation, not faith. YOU said we can substitute deism for ID but that backfired on you, didn't it?Come on RAZD, what religion is ID? Who do IDists worship or give service to that is determined by ID? No, RAZD the ONLY place ID is a religion is in the twisted minds of you and your ilk.

---

"...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, 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Loudmouth:
What evidence?

---

The evidence you keep ignoring.

quote:

---

Loudmouth:
If current natural theories can not explain a phenomena that does not mean that the phenomena is due to an intelligent agent.

---

And yet "if current natural theories can not explain a phenomena" it does mean it is taken on faith that we only haven't found naturalisms' answer.

quote:

---

LM:
It could very well be due to a natural mechanism that has not been discovered.

---

Science isn't done via promissory notes.

quote:

---

LM:
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.

---

That is an unsubstantiated assertion. What natural mechainism brought about Stonehenge? What natural mechanism brought about my appliances?

quote:

---

Premise: Life did not arise through natural mechanisms.
Observations: Nothing seen in nature prevents life from arising naturally.

---

Nothing seen in nature ALLOWS for life arising from non-life by nature acting alone.

quote:

---

Premise: Information can not arise naturally.
Observations: New information arises in genetic systems through natural mechanisms.

---

This all depends on what you are calling "naturalistic mechanisms". My computer does not run on naturalistic mechanisms because nature acting alone had nothing to do with my computer or its programs.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah and no one alive observed Stonehenge being designed or built. By your logic it is only through faith that we infer Stonehenge is not produced by nature.
The reality is the Intelligent agent is inferred from the evidence.Another one shot down. Let the evidence lead us. If it leads us to the metaphysical, so what? That alone does not make ID a religion. Try shooting down the 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:

---

RAZD:
This is refuted by Deism being a religion, yet they do not worship or give services.

---

But deism isn't religion. Deism is based on reason not faith. You lose.
Again refusing to read about the evidence for ID will not make it go away.

---

"...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:

---

LM:
Refusing to present it will not make it appear. This is a discussion board, not a recommended reading club.

---

As I have stated before- First, this is a discussion board. In order to have a discussion there needs to be a reference point, some common knowledge that can be discussed or used as a starting point of the discussion. As it stands the only thing we have in common is that I understand ID and you (all anti-IDists posting in this thread) can spell ID.IOW I can't discuss anything with you because you have not read the literature.

quote:

---

LM:
If you are going to make assertions you must support them yourself. Failure to do so negates your arguments and assertions.

---

I have been waiting for decades for evolutionists to support their assertions and they still haven't. Your failure to read is not my failure.

quote:

---

LM:
Can life arise anywhere in the universe through natural mechanisms and without the aid of an intelligent designer?

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Then the theory of evolution isn't science.

quote:

---

LM:
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.

---

It does matter where those laws came from. And there aren't any laws of chemistry that allow for life to arise from non-life by nature acting alone.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.

---

"...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"

Since when is Wikipedia an authority on anything? Bad form again RAZD.Deism is based on reason therefore ID is based on reason- not faith.I do agree with the "open minds" part. You should try it.

---

"...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 OT must stand for Obsolete Thinking.What is IDeism? Another strawman you erected?Fact- Deism is based on reason.IF we follow your lead then ID is based on reason.Whether you like it or not ID is not a rekigion, is based on evidence such as:Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheIt is that basic and simple.Heck if you can insult the great scientists of yore why should I care if I allegedly insult TJ?Again your ignorance does not make the evidence go away.

---

"...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:
All of these issues have already been addressed and shown to be logical fallacies or false assertions.

---

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?Here's a major fallacy for you:(Evolution without Selection Form and Function by Autoevolution, A. Lima de Faria, Elsevier, 1988)"The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism, 1984 quoted in de Faria's above book on p.15I don't need to review your slop, It is baseless BS, as the literature shows. ID is based on positive evidence. Your whining doesn't negate that fact. Great scientists and philosophers have seen it. Scientists and philosophers of today see it and report on it.The rewards of a theory (ID) are great when you consider we would know (or rather come to understand) the scope and types of changes a population could go through. Breeders would be thankful."Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence."That evidence in biology is the molecular machines we do observe. It is the hardware and software that make up biological organisms. What good is the hardware, eyes, without the complete vision system AND the software that enables us to understand what we see? Did both evolve together? What genes control the software? Or speech- you can put together the hardware but still some people can't talk. That is evidence also.
The Privileged Planet gives us evidence for ID beyond biology. The evidence the Newton wrote of.No sir, you have done nothing to show ID is faith based. Therefore you have done nothing to show ID is a religion.This I do know- you may think your posts have meaning here. I know they haven't any meaning in the real world. Please take it to the ISCID and we can all have a laugh at your expense.

---

"...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:

---

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

---

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.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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.Which one were you referring to?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there aren't any laws of chemistry that allow for life to arise from non-life by nature acting alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

LM:
There is no dividing line between inorganic and organic chemistry.

---

Who are you? Organic does not equal life.

quote:

---

LM:
Both nucleotides and amino acids have been produced through inorganic chemistry therefore negating the idea that only life can produce these chemicals.

---

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

quote:

---

LM:
Can you name one chemical law that is broken by life arising from inorganic chemicals? I sure can't.

---

I am sure you can't name one that allows it either. I bet you can't name one that allows for life from organic chemicals. By your logic our scientists must be a bunch of bumbling imbeciles. If life arising from non-life is so easy surely they would have stumbled onto it in a lab by now.

quote:

---

LM:
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.

---

That is incorrect. Your logic is flawed. ID is evidence based. Religions are faith based. Even if ID has metaphysical implications it does not make it a religion. Evolutionism is more faith-based than ID.

---

"...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:
I know you have to be impartial, but I think it's pretty obvious no evidence was presented by IDman. All he did was assert the conclusions of some ID theorists, and hang a few quotes that did not address the topic.

---

That is not so. The evidence is the bacterial flagellum. The evidence is as Dr. Behe says:
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheI can't help it if you people refuse to understand the concept of what evidence is. Life is evidence. The fact we have "natural" laws is evidence. Specified complexity and information are other evidences. Most, if not all, of the evidence has been laid out in the literature I cited. Failure to read said literature does not make it go away.When have I denied Behe? True I may disagree with Behe in common descent but I don't deny him anything. There are other scientists who disagree with common descent also. Many evolutionists agree with Lynn Margulis on endo-symbiosis for the origins of eukaryotes but disagree with her in other evolutionary matters. I don't understand your point.Bottom line is ID gets through the Lemon test and the Ninth Circuit's ruling on what constitutes a religion. IOW ID will take on RAZD in the real world any time.added during edit:
on the bac flag:
Natural selection selects functionally advantageous systems. Yet motor function ensues only after all parts have independently self-assembled. We know of only one cause sufficient to produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: intelligent design. This premise is falsifiable by showing that nature acting alone can produce said systems. Falsifiable, yes. Falsified, no. IOW it takes faith to think the bac flag arose by nature acting alone. There isn’t any evidence of nature doing so.Yes that too is evidence.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-10-2004 12:06 PM

---

"...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:
I actually do not like doing this because I agree that most practicing IDIOTs are using IDIOT theory as a religion, as IDman would seem to be a good example. He feigns science, but then resorts to all sorts of illogical claims and denies some of the scientific restraints Behe imposed on ID.

---

Nice insults. Is that the best you have? What science do I feign? As a scientist I am interested to know. What have I denied Behe?

quote:

---

holmes:
You ARE correct that pretty much all of them are using the "if we cannot determine a natural mechanism, it must be manufactured" criteria for design. Even Behe uses that.

---

That is not so. Behe uses the positive, as do many other IDists- Ratzsch, Gonzalez, Bradley, Meyer, et al., as evidenced by Behe's quote:Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components.
(indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle)
I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike BeheNothing about "nature couldn't do it", just based on what we DO know.

---

"...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 Ninth Circuit 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 matters
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 teaching
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 signs
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.ID is not religiously motivated. IDists are motivated by knowledge- knowledge of our existence. There is a truth to our existence. A reality on how life and the universe arose. That is what IDists seek.Now if people want to keep moving the goalposts that is another story. What are their motives for doing so?

---

"...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:

---

Rei:
Name a single case in which a respected evolutionist has presented a possible development route of the prokaryotic flagellum in which each intermediary stage isn't advantageous as well.

---

All I know of is Ken Miller's refuted attempt.

quote:

---

REI:
In fact, many in-betweens between no flagellum and a fully functional flagellum *already exist*.

---

I am only aware of the type III secretory system. This scientific research has shown that it may have evolved from the flagellum- if anything.

quote:

---

Rei:
All bacteria have at the very least passive transport pores. Most (if not all) have active transport pores, in which a protein or multiple proteins simply line the pore and, using ATP and a target molecule, fold to push out a particular molecule. These aren't particularly complex, and can easily be randomly created from hundreds of other cellular proteins.

---

That is nothing but an assertion. Where did those hundreds of other proteins come from? The stockroom?

quote:

---

Rei:
Such proteins, should they mutate so that they protrude from outside the pore, can be used to help bond the bacteria in place, either to other cells or to a natural substrate. Some of these have become long and filamentous, which allows the bacteria to remain further away from its substrate or to allow more bacteria to cluster around a particular substrate. An active protein that, through random mutation, bonds to both the filament and the cell wall can - and will - shake the filament whenever it is activated, causing the bacteria to move around (so, if say, the protein came from a protein that was activated in response to the cell being under attack, it would make the bacteria swing around and evade its predator). Eventually, the filament being bound toa substrate no longer becomes a necessity; the bacteria wouldn't be effective at swimming, but would be able to move itself erratically when it was under attack. Beyond that, incremental protein changes make swimming more effective by adding a rotational deformation. All of the in-between stages exist.

---

Again, nothing but assertion.Beavers, otters and seals? And from what did these evolve? You have no idea if these organisms evolved to their current state or designed into their current state. You have no idea if they did evolve what mechanism was involved- purely natural or pre-programmed.

---

"...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:
If the ID movement wants to be taken seriously, scientifically, it has to stop jumping to the next level.

---

ID doesn't jump to the next level. All I see are accusations with nothing to support them, Why is that?

quote:

---

holmes:
The first thing that must be set up is a solid criteria for design.

---

That has been done. Please read Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science by Del Ratzsch.

quote:

---

holmes:
You then go on to undercut Behe's scientific legitimacy by acting as if he is wrong about the possibility (even under his own evidentiary claims) that evolution may be completely responsible for changes we have seen.

---

Where and when did I do that? Behe believes in common descent. He does NOT say that the acceptable mode of evolution, NS acting on random mutations was responsible.

quote:

---

holmes:
And even if such a thing were to be discovered there would need to be much more positive evidence regarding the mechanisms of design and about the actual designer before discussing teleology at all.

---

That is total BS.

quote:

---

holmes:
And ONLY THEN, with a PROVEN designer, with a PROVEN design, with a PROVEN goal for specific entities, can ID theorists discuss implications on social agendas.

---

ID itself does not do that. What IDists do or want to do has no bearing on ID. This is about ID not IDists.I would suggest that you too read about ID by IDists.

---

"...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"