ID as Religion

Interestingly enough I opened a thread regarding the potential uses of ID, and gave a similar scenario (my engineered being was the manufactured glowing rabbit).For some reason the thread only attracted Evos trying to figure out how to determine such a change occured (manufactured vs evolved) in fossil records and such, as well as the future (when man manufactures a lot more lifeforms).Despite being the stated purpose of ID, no IDer came in to discuss this matter at all.

---

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

Mangy is correct that theoretically their theory is inclusive of superscience as well as the supernatural.HOWEVER, while IDers bend over backwards announcing the above theoretical to get their teachings into schools, when presented with someone actually making the case for superscience they then stand back up (finishing their human pretzel logic) to say "yeah but then you have to explain the existence of the superscientists"...Which of course insinuates there is no need to explain the existence of a God, and so if there is ID it is God. I think in theory ID is not religion, in practice it is.

---

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

Actually it may not be as we get into the idea of "intertwined" subatomic particles. Theoretically you could be across the Universe and have instantaneous influence on a particle.And this doesn't go into extradimensional possibilities we have yet to explore in science.But that is if we assume "instantaneous" and "at great distance". I have yet to read anything in ID literature which begins to suggest that that ever happened.If they make such an assumption, the first question levelled at them would have to be "why?"PS--- Make sure to check out my response #6 to you.

---

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

I though this had been done. If it hasn't... uh oh. Unfortunately I have to disagree. At least with respect to the works of a few ID theorists and the popular statements of the Discovery Institute.I have seen nothing which demands change at a distance or instantaneously. Behe said all design could have been frontloaded into the first life, or that beings were tweaked from time to time... apparently someone wanted to add a "rotor" to a bacteria... but nothing about time involved for that process or place.I think your criticisms hold for those that move beyond "evidence of design" and start trying to have an assumed mechanism, or better yet start talking about what "intention" the intelligence must have had.They do certainly have a faith that 1) negating evolution means design is the default, and 2) if they find one sign of design many other things must be. And silently I am very certain they are thinking THIS IS GOD THIS IS GOD THIS IS GOD.But their language defies that categorization. Perhaps because it is combed by a lawyer so that it can be stuffed into classrooms.

---

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

Look, I respect you, and I find your argument somewhat compelling (and truthful in the way they practice ID), but I have to respectfully disagree. That's not really true. "Frontloading" allows for evolution to work its magic over time. The point is that the designer understood that with a certain set of beginning "patterns" the others would emerge.Certainly if it was pointed out that frontloading required what you suggested above (a huge entity which could not exist naturally), they'd be forced to drop that theory.Heheheh... what they take with "frontloading" is certainly the same "leap of faith" that Behe was accusing evos of using, but not completely into the supernatural category that you are suggesting, unless they would accept the superentity and say well the Intelligence held it together.I think your criticism above works on another level than how you were applying it.

---

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

Well there would be physical requirements for such things as "frontloading" and mechanisms for "tweaking".While IDIOTs posit these possibilities, there is nothing but faith in them as explanations. Evos may, as Behe criticizes, be putting faith in a range of chemical possibilities that are so hard for us to imagine right now, that they seem implausible.However, frontloading and tweaking are also "ranges of chemical possibilities" with even less plausibility as they have no possible, or posited, mechanisms. I mean I suppose there could be possible mechanisms but the IDIOTs never mention them at all.So as it stands the IDIOTs are guilty of the same "leap of faith" problem as the Evos, with an added issue that there doesn't even appear to be another side to leap to. Some entity may have designed it, does nothing without an explanation of how and evidence for that how.It seems to me your criticism lands harder as blow about the "incredible" nature of their argument, more than the insistence that it is so incredible as to require the supernatural.Of course when the IDIOTs go to answer your criticism, they may end up revealing the exact position you were originally targeting. Certainly the likes of Dembski and Johnson would. As an aside, have you read Behe? He is there only real practicing biologist of any merit and the above is an admission he makes. He is NOT antievolution per se and says that evolution could account for everything from the bacteria to humans.His point is that the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection on chemicals could not have provided for some of what we see. Some things must have been designed, or designed to be possible at a later date.Its the whole "information" thing, where the chemicals necessary to make something as found had to have been "patterned" in at some point (perhaps the beginning).I found him to be the strongest theorist in that he admits to some problems and is willing to say this may only be about abiogenesis. Of course I then scratch my head as he says nothing (publicly) when the rest of the IDIOTs pull his work out of context. I don't think any of this is NECESSARILY true. We have no idea what other life might be like (inorganic life), nor (if time or extra dimensional activity is possible) what the capabilities of cellular life are. Technically cells could have created cells before their were cells... though the idea that noncellular life created cellular life might be more plausible.It certainly would not require omniscience (at the stage we are describing at this moment). It would simply have to have tested biological activity under earth conditions... or perhaps many different conditions.I also have no understanding why their is a necessry problem with the designer remaining undetected. I think it is a problem that the IDIOTs have no example of such a designer to hang their theoretical hat on... since they demand absolute PROOF of anything evos theorize... but it could be the the designer (especially with frontloading) may never have had direct contact with earth or in any way that we would recognize (beyond the created beings). Added to the above is life created simply to carry out specific tasks of some nature on earth. The sprawling life we see may have just happened to come about as the limited purpose creatures (being organic) interacted and evolved into what we see, or as you put it above, it was the hope of these designers to have life create a biosphere on this planet (so a larger and more general task).I call this the Lovecraftian scenario, and use it against IDIOTs when they start moving into discussions of what PURPOSE life must have, since it was DESIGNED, and therefore why we must vote republican on every issue.After all every DESIGN does not have to be so GRAND. Here is where the problems begin to crop up for the IDIOTs. There is no problem with design and implementation of design... the problem is purpose, Organic Teleology (the OT in IDIOT).If they maintain that a designer had a plan that a certain set of DNA patterns set in a chemical shell and placed on the planet earth would eventually create HUMANS, and that was the END GOAL, well then we are talking about something very different.That is an omniscient, or border omniscient issue. Even time travelers would more than likely just tweak to get a result, rather than front load for that kind of specificity.I realize that SOME IDIOTs are pushing that humans are the end result of all this design, but they have yet to make any substantial claim to that effect, and it would seem that the natural accidents which help put us here tend to argue otherwise.Behe does not take this strong of a stance in his writings, and a few others maintain distance as well. Their OT is much more limited in scope.Thus I don't think you can paint the entire IDIOT movement as a religion, even if many (probably most) abuse it as such.I think you are better served using your argument against specific IDIOT theorists, removing them from play, and then turn it on the ones who remain to force them to explain plausible mechanisms for front loading and tweaking.And if they can't, ask them how that is not a greater leap of faith than evos relying on evolutionary bridges and specified chemical environments we simply haven't found yet.

---

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

The above I can agree with, but then see a difference between that broad concept of supernatural and religion... especially if the Lovecraftian scenario is available. It is useful to read Darwin's Black Box. You may be surprised at how not so bad it is. Oh sure I could spot flaws all over the place and so will you, but it has an interesting perspective on how important the biochemical level is for understanding how biology works.It is the best written work from any of the ID people and the only one with realistic science (and real science in some places), which is to say to try and make a POSITIVE CLAIM rather than just negative attacks.Its also nice to have Behe's admissions that evolution might be right all the way back to the very first cell, oh yes and that the fossil record is fine, and the earth is old.

---

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

I'd suggest Darwin's Black Box, and Wells's Icons of Evolution.The former is the ID movement's attempt at actual science based positive claims in a nutshell... a very very small nutshell. It is the source of anything biological they refer to, unless they refer to themselves, or evos out of context.It also provides (as I mentioned) fodder against most of the rest of the IDIOTs.The latter is the outline of their negative attacks on evolution. I actually think it is funny in some parts, and every great once in a while he has a point. But one wonders how he misses many of the facts, as well as how the same problems plague religion.It is interesting that he chooses an across the board attack on evolutionary theory as that directly contradicts statements Behe makes. I guess no one got them together to deal with the "controversy" of IDIOT theory.Sometimes I think everyone should allow these people to get their agenda in the school and then say, okay we will do what you say, we will "teach the controversy" and then point out the MASSIVE holes in IDIOT theory and how these guys can't get it together between their own publications.At least Evos are arguing about depth of knowledge and particulars of mechanisms... not what the theory is!

---

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

I agree that IDman is a very poor debater and hasn't done anything but assert, and then call names. Even more interesting is that he quotes Behe when convenient and then discards Behe when he wants to challenge Evolution.HOWEVER... Okay, IDman has not, but I think I have. My problem was that you have equated religion with supernatural... and a very broad definition of supernatural at that.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.Anyhow the first two are basically scientific.Where many IDIOT Theorists gain an element of faith, by any definition, is when they believe that by knocking down (or calling into question) proposed evolutionary mechanisms, the REMAINING answer is design.That certainly is not science (or logic) and what IDman has shown a penchant for doing.But that is as I have just said... bad science and logic, with a faith that this is an either or discussion and nixing one proves the other.I think you are making a similar mistake in assuming the mechanisms underlying design are the only ones (religious), and so by attacking them you can undercut ID.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.At first I agreed with your statement that it could be "supernatural" in a broad sense, yet looking back at the definitions I am thinking maybe it is still to specific.The example ID mechanisms I gave are not wholly outside the natural world or natural forces. What they would be is possibly natural forces yet unknown, or natural environments not yet discovered.It is JUST AS VALID as saying abiogenesis is possible but we may not have discovered the right environment or determined all the forces acting on the chemical yet. It is also JUST AS VALID as saying we do not have all the evolutionary forces/mechanisms identified yet.Just because extradimensions, or time travel, or things like entangled particles are currently theoretical, does not make them wholly supernatural, just not proven. Indeed, if we ever find them to be true then they are wholly natural.Gods and things like that, would still remain "supernatural" in the sense that they move beyond natural forces and can even change them. They (if discovered) would become part of nature, but still be outside of it or be counted as a natural force of their own.This is not the same for superscientific ID possibilities.Since pure ID carries this possibility, there cannot be said to be a belief in the wholly supernatural (according to the defs in the OP). And one certainly cannot be a belief in any particular religion.I think this is a real refutation of your argument, even in its broadest sense.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.But I am a stickler for accuracy, and pure ID is not religion.Oh yes, and as a total other aside, as a science ID has completely failed to answer the first and second questions. 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.Only bad science is another topic altogether, and does not automatically imply religion.

---

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

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.I second RAZD, even if I don't agree with his position, that IDman ought to actually make an argument of his own regarding the OP's defs.I'd find that particularly interesting since he is quoting Behe, and then denying him, when the further he gets from Behe the closer he comes to practicing ID as a religion.

---

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

If there are no agnostics and atheists then it seems they are indeed fostering a religion, even if the denomination remains unspecified.I am interested in your own position. In advancing ID, do you include non-supernatural entities as possible designers, and as such do NOT make assumptions about the nature of this design/designer and the possibility of ultimate end goals?When being value neutral ID theorists will point to Crick and note that he believed in aliens seeding the galaxies and that would count as a form of ID.Do you hold Crick's scenario as equally plausible to one involving a "divine" purposeful creator? By the way I am glad to see you admit that the points you outlined are all assertions and not facts or even well argued conclusions. None of this takes away from the possibility that a thoroughly scientific endeavour is being used or practiced as a religion.I find the above argument of yours particularly amusing since those same lawyers you mention have been trying to make the case that evolution is being practiced as a religion.Evolution fulfills all of the criteria you listed for not being a religion while defending ID. So are those great lawyers and philosophers right, or are they being inconsistent, or are they being self-serving?In any case YOU have to pick a side and stick with it. No, but sans concrete evidence of any particular implications, an assumption or promotion of a theory as HAVING metaphysical implications would make it a religion... even if denomination neutral. Hmmmmm, it seems like that board isn't interested in actual debate on the topic of ID, but rather how to polish certain aspects of it.In any case your attitude and writing style seem to contradict the stated policies of that board. They can be found here.Perhaps you should just deal calmly with the first post and at the same time figure out which side of ID you are on.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-10-2004 06:05 AM

---

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

That is not evidence regarding whether ID is used as a religion or not. That is a single reference to a single ID author on a specific subject that happens not to be an example of ID being used as a religion.There are other authors and there are other quotes. Yes here is some evidence that is on topic...Dembski wrote a book called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology"You can start with trying to explain that title. After that you can explain the interior arguments which advise using science to back up the Bible and the Bible to back up science.That would be the type of evidence you'd have to be dealing with in this thread. There are other threads for discussing specific arguments for/against planks of IDIOT theory. What on earth are these arguments? This is hardly counts as evidence of any kind, much less science, even by IDIOT standards. You will find that I have read quite a bit. Failure to address the actual arguments in this thread will not make them go away. You cannot use the theories he laid out in Darwin's Black Box, and then say you disagree with the logical implications of them.His statements regarding the FACT that if there is design it may have only been at the point of abiogenesis, is not separable. That is the logical implication of his theory. This analogy does not fit. The other scientists have other options and are stating that she does not have evidence to place the mechanism of symbiosis as an overriding mechanism in other areas.If you, or anyone else, has some scientific evidence that abiogenesis could not be the place of design, I'd like to see it. I have not denied that it could. If you are capable of reading perhaps you would have noticed I am saying pure ID theory is not a religion.My only statement that as PRACTICED by many IDIOT theorists... and given two of your pieces of evidence I guess you are one of those many... it is a religion.Nice dodge, in not addressing that your lawyers have made the same argument against evolutionary theorists. This is off topic as it is a discussion of the arguments of IDIOT theory itself.But as an advance on some other thread, you simply have evidence for something or you do not. If we do not have evidence for a specific mechanism then we don't have a proven mechanism.The default position of there not being a designer is that there simply is no evidence for a designer (as a mechanism). Behe has only "proven" (at best) that we have no specific natural mechanisms as explanations for some certain structures.Or more specifically HE has not found any and does not know how, given the extent of our knowledge of biochemistry, how to explain the existence of those structures.He does not provide any positive evidence for a designer, just that it is still an open question.It takes faith to believe that a designer is the default answer if there is no known natural mechanism.

---

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

No, actually I have a direct reply to you, involving no insults, which you have not answered. Indeed you have chosen to respond to two posts NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU.This thread is a discussion on whether ID is in fact a religion. You have said that it is not... it is a science... and feign this position by mentioning specifics which do not contain overtly nonscientific statements.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.Indeed you make silly comments like "life is evidence" and "natural laws are evidence", which is quite nonscientific claptrap. I have said that Behe comes the closest to making positive arguments. Unfortunately while he starts okay... admitting he is creating a criterion to "suspect" design... only to end on a much stronger statement than allowed and based more or less on a fallacy of analogy.If the ID movement wants to be taken seriously, scientifically, it has to stop jumping to the next level.The first thing that must be set up is a solid criteria for design. One that is acknowledgable as applicable in practice, and not based on "if no proven mechanism, then design."Only then can it be applied to specific entities.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.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.

---

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

This is patently untrue. What is true is that many fill the above criteria, if not in written theory, then in practice.However, as has been pointed out by ID theorists in some lucid moments, the designer does NOT HAVE TO BE SUPERNATURAL. The references to Crick's belief in aliens seeding the universe as an ID option, underscore this fact.In its PURE sense ID can be wholly scientific. It just hasn't been in practice, and may never get anywhere as a science because its leaders are only interested in promoting religion in a sheep's disguise of valid science. Actually what you list as 2b should be taken care of in point #1. The fact that it isn't just shows how weak their criteria are. That does not make it a religion though, as even UFO freaks can deny any religious or supernatural elements and use the same shitty criteria ID currently has.I wish people would not get so upset with ID that they make extreme statements about their position which are not true.Let me tell you, I absolutely loathe IDIOT theory (which is how it is currently practiced) and I have not been impressed by any work done strictly with ID (theoretically just detecting design in an object) so far.I recognize that both branches have failed as science, and the more popular (IDIOT Theory) is pretty much a religious Trojan Horse.But that does not take away from one thing, and that is maybe we can come up with criteria for detecting design. Maybe it will be useful in the future as more organisms become designed, and we need to sift through actual evolutionary changes and manmade entities.It'll have to reach that stage before we can apply it to the deep past, if indeed we ever can. Dembski (to my mind) has NOTHING to do with an actual ID theory. He is thoroughly an IDIOT theorist, and PATENTLY USING IT AS RELIGION.I pretty much gave up on his arguments having any merit when he began saying we had to abandon labelling arguments from ignorance as logical fallacies. I mean at that point... good bye! Remember I said they had to answer the first question first, which is what criteria can we use. I realize the above is what is being advanced by most... if not all... ID theorists.It completely fails as a criteria. Heck, you can't even get them to explain information properly. I hate to bring this up, but these options are enough, and there could be many more natural mechanisms that act at vast distances that we are simply unaware of at this time.It is faith if they SAY what mechanism was used. But all they have to do to find design is to come up with valid criteria no matter the mechanism.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.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.Given the vast lack of knowledge we have about how biological things change over time, and unlike artifacts they do change by themselves over time, they are going to have to do a lot better than "if not known, then design" and analogies to mouse traps as criteria for "detecting design". Yes it can, simply nowhere as easily as a bunch of religious philosophers, mathematicians, and lawyers think it can.

---

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

Exactly. I guess my take on the whole thing is to let their own words hang them.IF ID is science, which is how they keep promoting it, IDMan citing how the lawyers got everything cinched up that way... FINE.Then let everyone approach it as science and not fall into the trap being set by criticizing ALL ID for being creationist. I mean that's EXACTLY the kind of stuff they are looking for.Just walk in and throw back all the curtains and let the sunshine of science burn away all the garbage of creationism. The obvious ones like Dembski will fry in an instant.And if it is science, then these advocates are going to have to welcome all this added attention to the admittedly factual evidence Biblical literalism has NO SUPPORT, and that ID is still an infant idea with no theoretical weight to challenge current evolutionary theory.They say teach the controversy? Fine. They will see there are "issues" of mechanisms within an evolutionary theory that has ample evidence to support it regardless of mechanism, as opposed to a highly contradictory (almost wholly pathwork) set of criteria for the beginning of an ID theory which has no proposed mechanisms, much less evidence for such mechanisms.If there is a controversy within evo, a fullscale civil war must be going on within ID ranks.Teach that? Fine. Evolution comes off better. Or perhaps they can start actually defining "information", and how it is detected and measured in an objective sense.

---

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