ID as Religion

quote:

---

Careful schraf. You have made two errors so far. There is no reason for ID to have to address the nature of a designer (though I agree that that makes there criteria a longer haul).

---

While technically true, this is very suspicious.I know of no other scientific field which deals with design in which learning about the designer is deemed off limits, e.g. Archaeology.

quote:

---

He said that nonnatural explanations would never be considered. This is not true, even under methodological naturalism. What happens is they won't get considered first, and until current natural mechanisms are exhausted.

---

How do we know when all natural mechanisms are exhausted since we are not omnicient?The point of methodological naturalism is that since we can never have perfect knowledge, we must never assume that just because we haven't thought of a naturalistic explanation does not mean one does not exist.Using supernaturalistic mechanisms tends to stop inquiry cold and you then run into problems with falsifiability, further distancing the hypothesis from science.

Ouch, you are making a mistake. ID is about the detection of design, so according to its own definition is NOT ABOUT learning about the designer.That would be the difference between forensics and archeology.Now there is no reason they cannot move into learning about the designer as an offshoot, or addendum, to ID. But ID itself (especially at this stage), is just about creating criteria for detecting design in a biological organism. That is the pickle for them. In nonbiological entities, or entities we know lots of things about, we can determine when our range of natural mechanisms have been exhausted.That is of course why they keep using analogies to things we know a lot about and have limited mechanisms. Certainly none of them were capable of change on their own over time, which even they admit biological organisms do. I'm onboard with this. That is why what they want to accomplish is so hard.But MN does NOT exclude such explanations from EVER being used or contemplated. I'm certain you can think of a scenario where nonmaterial mechanisms may be proven, or where purely mechanical mechanisms would appear the LEAST likely candidates.They are jumping the gun because such scenarios are not being observed. I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply saying that a scientist following MN will not exclude nonnatural mechanisms NO MATTER WHAT. Its not dogma, its simply technique regarding most logical possibilities and so focus of effort.

---

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

quote:

---

That's is NOT the point. The point is we didn't have to know anything about those alleged people before we inferred Stonehenge was the producy of an intelligent agency.

---

It is the point.We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.We have positive evidence of people making stuff like that. Anyone can observe people making stuff like that.Where is your positive evidence?

quote:

---

By your logic I can assume that beavers built all the dams in the world or is that people are building the dams for beavers?

---

If we didn't know about beavers and found a beaver dam, we might well conclude that humans built it if the only dams we ever saw before were of human construction.However, we can scientifically investigate this and we can observe the beavers building the dam and the method they use to build the dam. Can the same be said of your Intelligent Designer?

quote:

---

Wrong. What IDists are saying is that based on our current level of knowledge ID is the best explanation for what we observe.

---

It's not an explanation at all.It's an "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy."We don't believe that any naturalistic explanation will ever exist for this mechanism, therefore we can just assume the IDer Didit, and don't ask about who the IDer is, or how he designed, we don't want to talk about that."

quote:

---

Yes. The evidence is life, the bac flag, IC, specified complexity and information-rich systems

---

No, those are phenomena you want to explain by a Designer. You then should look for evidence that this Designer is at work. You can't then point at the original phenomena as your evidence. For example, an evolutionary scientist may explain camoflauge by natural selection. When pressed for evidence of natural selection, it doesn't make any sense to point to camoflauge. That's circular reasoning. Likewise, and ID'er can't point to the bacterial flagellum, say the Designer made it, then say that the evidence for this is the flagellum itself.

quote:

---

Neither are relevant to detecting and understanding design.

---

So, you point to a natural phenomena that we currently do not understand, and say the IDer Didit, but we aren't allowed to ask HOW the IDer Didit?We should just take your word for it that the IDer didit?What kind of science is that?

quote:

---

The evidence has been given.

---

No, it hasn't.

quote:

---

Do you have any positive evidence that nature acting alone brought life from non-life?

---

We don't know exactly how life first began.We may never know.That doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps of our knowledge with the IDer Didit.It just means that we don't know, and may never know.

quote:

---

Not if the rules are also in debate:
? In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the ?teach the controversy? model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy.? John Angus Campbell, pg. xxv 3rd paragraph of [I][b]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/I][/b].

---

Please explain how leaving behind methodological naturalism would benefit inquiry.

quote:

---

However materialistic naturalism is NOT the same as applying methodological approaches to science:

---

Methodological naturalism IS the scientific method. [qs]IDists? (yes led by Behe on the molecular front, or even Denton before him) base our conclusion (that an intelligent agency played a role in the design of our universe, including life) on our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.[/quote]But how do you know that a naturalistic explanation will not be found 100 years from now to explain whatever you say is unexplainable by naturalistic means?

quote:

---

If you want to tell the difference use Dembski's design explanatory filter.

---

No, I'd like you to explain it to me, if you would be so kind.

quote:

---

Yes. The evidence is life

---

Therefore, if life can not arise through natural mechanisms then a supernatural deity is required. If a supernatural deity is required then ID theory as presented by creationists is a religion.

Thank you for finally addressing the original post. Again you are quoting from a source (do you have an url for it? I would be interested), however I don't think the question is really answered by this. Of course in one sense that will not happen until a court actually makes a judgement. What follows is an interpretation of that document by a proponent of ID and not by any judge on the Ninth Circuit, ergo it is NOT a definitive answer but just an opinion, a self-biased opinion.Let’s look at this matter further: Such as the origin of life, the special place of human life in the course of the universe (at least to humans) and the ways that such life may have come into existence.ID fits this bill as it uses the concept of design to explain such fundamental and ultimate questions.What you quoted does not prove the case as it is only one small part of what ID is, this is the logical fallacy of using the part for the whole. For ID the belief system is that a designer is involved in the development of life, and this is certainly not an isolated teaching judging from the extensive and growing numbers of books, websites and articles on the issue of whether or not a designer is involved. Certainly the movement is not founded on the belief that one single incident occurred, but a comprehensive pattern of behavior.Again, your argument about ID not involving morals is a strawman argument. Deism is a religion and has no specific moral code, but relies on logic and rational behavior and the derivation of morals from self evident truths and first principles. First notice that this does NOT exclude any belief system that does not have certain formal and external signs and does not address whether or not a belief system can be judged when this is not the case, the implication being that if they are present that the evidence for the belief being a religion is stronger.Again what you say for ID holds for Deism with equal validity, and Deism is recognized as a religion.Of course the things you list are only some external, formal signs of religions, but don’t encompass all of them.A common belief in a being whose existence is unknown by whose powers certain things are believed to have come into existence would be another such external sign. For ID this is the common belief in the existence of a designer.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Then you need to look again. I said I would be on the road for a while and may not be able to answer immediately to your posts. I said before that the 9th court thing was only a self-serving interpretation without true legal basis. Your listing of that opinion again in greater detail does not change that fact. It seems that you are down to repeating yourself with nothing left to show.And it does not refute the argument made in the original post.You also have not answered whether the definition of supernatural is agreeable to you. You could start there.Enjoy.{edited to sort out jumbled text. touchpad changes cursor location while typing ... arg.}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-13-2004 12:18 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The evidence is life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Loudmouth:
Therefore, if life can not arise through natural mechanisms then a supernatural deity is required. If a supernatural deity is required then ID theory as presented by creationists is a religion.

---

First ID is not presented by creationists and second just because the evidence leads us to the metaphysical it does not follow that religion has to be attached.

---

"...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:
What follows is an interpretation of that document by a proponent of ID and not by any judge on the Ninth Circuit, ergo it is NOT a definitive answer but just an opinion, a self-biased opinion.

---

LoL!!! As if YOU have offered anything but a self-biased opinion. However I did not offer an opinion, I offered FACTS.Part 1:
a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable mattersFACT 1
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 teachingFACT 2
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 signsFACT 3
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.Now on the other hand, due to your ignmorance of ID, all you can offer is un-substatiated assertions and blatant lies.We shall look further:

quote:

---

RAZD:
Such as the origin of life, the special place of human life in the course of the universe (at least to humans) and the ways that such life may have come into existence.

---

ID says nothing about any special place for human life.

quote:

---

RAZD:
For ID the belief system is that a designer is involved in the development of life, and this is certainly not an isolated teaching judging from the extensive and growing numbers of books, websites and articles on the issue of whether or not a designer is involved.

---

Wrong again. Just because a designer was required for life doesn't mean that designer hung around for its development. I don't need a software programmer to run the application programs that run on my computer. ID says nothing about morality or an afterlife.ID is not a belief-system as it is based on evidence. The theory of evolution with the alleged history of life is a belief system in comparison.It is clear that RAZD does not want to face the facts. He is quite content with misrepresenting reality to fit his agenda. That is fine with me.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:06 AM

---

"...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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's is NOT the point. The point is we didn't have to know anything about those alleged people before we inferred Stonehenge was the producy of an intelligent agency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:

​

It is the point.

​

We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.

---

How do we know that?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
We have positive evidence of people making stuff like that. Anyone can observe people making stuff like that.

---

Where and when was another Stonehenge made?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. What IDists are saying is that based on our current level of knowledge ID is the best explanation for what we observe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
It's not an explanation at all.

---

And what kind of expalnation is "nature did it"? Why go against what we do know to posit something else?

quote:

---

schrafinator:
It's an "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy.

​

"We don't believe that any naturalistic explanation will ever exist for this mechanism, therefore we can just assume the IDer Didit, and don't ask about who the IDer is, or how he designed, we don't want to talk about that."

---

By your logic when an archeologist comes upon an inscription in the wall he should assume it was put there by nature acting alone. We don't want him to commit a "scribe-of-gaps" fallacy.
We do not need to know who designed my car to know it was designed. We do not need to know how it was designed to deyect and understand it. However I can understand that logic eludes you.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The evidence is life, the bac flag, IC, specified complexity and information-rich systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
No, those are phenomena you want to explain by a Designer.

---

No, those are evidences of a designer.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
You then should look for evidence that this Designer is at work. You can't then point at the original phenomena as your evidence. For example, an evolutionary scientist may explain camoflauge by natural selection. When pressed for evidence of natural selection, it doesn't make any sense to point to camoflauge. That's circular reasoning. Likewise, and ID'er can't point to the bacterial flagellum, say the Designer made it, then say that the evidence for this is the flagellum itself.

---

OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity. It is a multi-part system that functions because of the parts that make it up. We can be assured of its design as we can with any other multi-part system that a;so exhibits IC- getting seperate components together in such a way to achieve a function that depends on the components.

quote:

---

scrafinator:
So, you point to a natural phenomena that we currently do not understand, and say the IDer Didit, but we aren't allowed to ask HOW the IDer Didit?

---

Just because something exists in nature does not equal it being created by nature. Also you can ask those questions. It is just that ID was not formulated to answer them. Does the theory of evolution answer life's origins? No.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
We should just take your word for it that the IDer didit?

---

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

quote:

---

schrafinator:
What kind of science is that?

---

Ditto.

quote:

---

schrafinator:
But how do you know that a naturalistic explanation will not be found 100 years from now to explain whatever you say is unexplainable by naturalistic means?

---

And how do you know that the designer will not be revealed in that same time frame? Science is not done with promissory notes.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to tell the difference use Dembski's design explanatory filter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

schrafinator:
No, I'd like you to explain it to me, if you would be so kind.

---

Not today. This is a discussion board. IOW you are supposed to come prepared. How is that people feel qualified to dis something they know little or nothing about?Where is your positive 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"

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

quote:

---

schrafinator:
Using supernaturalistic mechanisms tends to stop inquiry cold and you then run into problems with falsifiability, further distancing the hypothesis from science.

---

More evidence that schraf does not understand ID. There is still plenty of work to be done to understand the design. Sir Isaac didn't give up just because he knew what he observed was put there by a supernatural entity.How do we falsify the notion that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes by 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"

quote:

---

MrHambre:
Behe and the other ID creationists ...

---

Behe isn't an ID Creationist. I don't know of any ID Creationists. Your whole premise is faulty.IDC exists only in the minds of people who don't know better- people that drool a lot.Where is your positive evidence that nature acting alone did all this? Where did nature come from?Your arguments are childish at best.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:35 AM

---

"...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"

So when all logic and reason fail, you resort to attacking the poster. up. That will convince all.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

jar:
So when all logic and reason fail, you resort to attacking the poster.

---

No attacks, just an observation. It is obvious MrHambre knows very little if anything about ID. This has been shown to him many times, yet he keeps up the BS. That is childish, or worse.As far as logic and reason, MrHambre does not understand those words either. Most evos don't. Not an attack, just an observation.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:59 AMThis message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:59 AM

---

"...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"

But as we've established, he didn't put his ideas about God in his theories, either. You could start by displaying a designer capable of the feat.