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}}}

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).

Excellent point! Good reading.I'm not sure about the particular E. coli example but I'm pretty darn sure it would be possible to have a genetic modification that would "stick out". Encoding a 1,000 digits of PI perhaps?I think what you have here, in a long winded form, is Clark's third law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-04-2004 12:33 AM

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 !

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)

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}}}

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)

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}}}

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)

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}}}

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)

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}}}

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)

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}}}