ID as Religion

ID man says:

quote:

---

the evidence leads us to the metaphysical

---

How can the evidence lead us to something we can't even define? The scientific method is supposed to limit these factors to things we can verify in some empirical way. As we've said, you're making the conclusions you want, then claiming the evidence led you there. This is the Argument From Design at its essence, and it's no more valid in its present formulation than in the one Paley peddled.If we ask what the "evidence" is, you point to IC biological systems, the phenomenon of life itself, or even the physical attributes of the universe. However, you assume these things are evidence of intelligent design in and of themselves. This is something you take on faith, and expecting everyone to share your assumptions is unrealistic.Behe and the other ID creationists point to the intricate interdependence of the parts of certain biological systems, irreducible complexity, specified complex information, or whatever attribute they feel is evidence of intelligent design, but this is essentially the same thing. Why, we ask, is any attribute evidence in and of itself that an intelligent designer created the artifacts bearing that attribute? We know what humans can or cannot design, and our knowledge of human artifacts is inseparable from our understanding of the history of human evolution and civilzation. If we don't know anything about the intelligent designer, how can we be so sure what his designs will look like?The answer is that intelligent design creationism is a religion based on faith that a disembodied, eternal, omnipotent entity can be invoked to "explain" any phenomenon. The use of scientific terminology and bleating about "evidence" doesn't change the fact that ID creationists are deeply distrustful of the scientific method and have no respect for the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry.regards,
Esteban Hambre

ID man keeps saying:

quote:

---

And we should take your word that nature acting alone did it?

​

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

---

Religious believers throughout history have asked these questions in the context of many phenomena we no longer feel the need to invoke supernatural intervention in order to explain. We don’t require a supernatural designing entity to explain such former mysteries as the seasons, heredity, earthquakes, diseases, rainbows, tides, magnetism, mountains, catastrophic weather, solar and lunar eclipses, identical twins, and so forth. It’s certainly a believer’s prerogative to ascribe any of these to the will of a supernatural being, but the burden of proof would be on him if he expects us to share his suspicion that nature acting alone is inadequate to account for any scientific phenomenon.regards,
Esteban Hambre