Back to School Part VI

_{Cornelius Hunter

October 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolutionists are adamant that science must be free of religion or anything that smacks of religion. And while that sounds good, evolutionists are all-the-while driven by religion. They are sure all of biology is a fluke because of their religious convictions. Religion is both the source of evolution’s certainty and the target of its wrath. While not proclaiming that science must be free of religion, evolutionists make a wide spectrum of religious claims that mandate their theory. Read more

Comments

Hi, Upright BiPed. Dawkins and others certainly claim evolution as a tool for debunking religion. You could easily find dozens or hundreds of such individuals (though most wouldn't be of nearly as high a profile). Let me state my argument a bit plainer. Let X be the fraction of those who advocate evolutionary theory as a means to "kill" God. Let Y be the fraction of those who advocate ID/special creation as a means to "prove" God. My claim is that X is smaller than Y, and probably by a very wide margin.AMW_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Hi, Clive. Religion can have evidence, as Christianity does, or it can be believed in spite of the evidence, as macro-evolution is. If religion can be based on evidence or not, then it's a pretty hollow statement to label evolution a religion. So I'm still mystified why creationists/ID proponents seem to like to make that claim. The supposition [evolution] is founded upon is that intelligent design, and/or special creation are entirely off the table, and thus evolution must be true by default as an explanation of the diversity of life. Taking ID or special creation off the table wouldn't make evolution true. One could simply be left with a gap in knowledge. Bill Dembski has also said that the Designer need not be God at all. He’s also said that it may have nothing at all to do with God. ... If religion were at the core of ID, you would have to explain how Bradly Monton, and David Berlinksi, an atheist and an agnostic, support ID. Regarding Dembski, he has also come out as an old earth creationist. It's pretty clear that he thinks he knows exactly who the designer is. And he is not in the minority in ID circles. As for Monton and Berlinski, it's possible for a movement to have fellow travelers who don't fall in line with its core beliefs. Finland sided with the Axis Powers not out of any sense of racial superiority or affinity for fascism, but because they had just lost the Winter War to the USSR. (And before anybody gets Godwin on the phone, I'm not trying to equate ID with Hitler, or any such nonsense. This is just the most apt historical example I could think of.) So I'll grant you Monton and Berlinski. That doesn't make the ID movement a broad-based, secularly minded affair. What fraction of ID proponents would you say are agnostic or atheist?AMW_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Hi AMW, science is the endeavor to find and articulate consistencies in nature. Religion is the attempt to explain why there is nature and how we should behave with regard to it which includes of course our fellow occupants of it. Science must never be dogmatic since the observed consistency may be eventually be found to be inaccurate or incomplete regardless of how certain it seems. Religion, of course, must be dogmatic, ironically for the same reason.tribune7_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

AMW,
Finally, I find it hard to accept that ID wants to leave religion at the door. Dembski is on record saying that ID is “the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” And Phillip Johnson is on record equating ID with the reality of God. To me, that suggests that religion is at the very core of ID.
Richard Dawkins is on record saying that Darwin made it "possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" And speaking from the evolutionary highground, Monod tells us of the "fundamental postulate" which is that "there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe" and he goes on the say that this is "basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems". Following your logic, shall we equate belief in evolutionary theory with atheism? And since these are men speaking through the enlightened authority of science, perhaps they can produce the results from testing atheism for its falsifiability.Upright BiPed_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

AMW,
Perhaps you could clarify to me what you mean by “religious” and “religion.” In your first paragraph you imply that evolution is a religion, because it’s persisted as a belief for a long time without evidence. Christianity is a religion. Does this mean it has also persisted for a long time without evidence?
Religion can have evidence, as Christianity does, or it can be believed in spite of the evidence, as macro-evolution is.
Regarding your second paragraph, what would you say is the supposition that evolution is founded on? I will have to disagree with you that the evolutionists on this site come across has highly religious. In my (admittedly limited) experience, that has not been the case. Unless we’re working from different definitions of religion.
My experience, which is not limited given that I am the Moderator, is that evolution is believed blindly, with evidence being stretched to fit the idea, instead of the idea coming from the evidence. The supposition it is founded upon is that intelligent design, and/or special creation are entirely off the table, and thus evolution must be true by default as an explanation of the diversity of life. It's a supposition based on a metaphysical prejudice of anything not reducible to material happenstance explanations. In my experience this has exactly been the case.
Finally, I find it hard to accept that ID wants to leave religion at the door. Dembski is on record saying that ID is “the Logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” And Phillip Johnson is on record equating ID with the reality of God. To me, that suggests that religion is at the very core of ID.
Bill Dembski has also said that the Designer need not be God at all. He's also said that it may have nothing at all to do with God. If there is correlation with scripture, I see no reason to deny this, it doesn't mean that the one entails the other, it only means that there is a similarity, which might be worth investigating. If religion were at the core of ID, you would have to explain how Bradly Monton, and David Berlinksi, an atheist and an agnostic, support ID. Cheers, CliveClive Hayden_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Hi, AussieID. Perhaps you could clarify to me what you mean by "religious" and "religion." In your first paragraph you imply that evolution is a religion, because it's persisted as a belief for a long time without evidence. Christianity is a religion. Does this mean it has also persisted for a long time without evidence? Regarding your second paragraph, what would you say is the supposition that evolution is founded on? I will have to disagree with you that the evolutionists on this site come across has highly religious. In my (admittedly limited) experience, that has not been the case. Unless we're working from different definitions of religion. Finally, I find it hard to accept that ID wants to leave religion at the door. Dembski is on record saying that ID is "the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." And Phillip Johnson is on record equating ID with the reality of God. To me, that suggests that religion is at the very core of ID. Cheers, AMWAMW_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

That USAToday article by Jerry Coyne was from an entirely religious perspective. Further, when one says science cannot recognize God, then claim that science proves God does not exist, then one is not only simply being a man of faith but a delusional man of faith.tribune7_{October 15, 2010
October
10
Oct
15
15
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

G'day AMW, We are not trying to 'tarnish' evolution, just making people aware of how religious evolutionists may be. Evolution is not all science. Evolution is markedly religiously-based and this is drawn from over 150 years of positing ideas without the evidence and, hoping through their faith, that what they believe will turn out. Evolution is based on a supposition. That supposition is not entirely science-founded. Read through the pages here and you will notice the religiosity of the evolutionist laid bare. That many IDers and all creationists are religious just shows that one person's religion is tolerated and another's is targetted. ID wants to examine the science and, I believe, leave the religion at the door. You may find that difficult to believe, but the religion of evolutionists don't want that to happen.AussieID_{October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

They are sure all of biology is a fluke because of their religious convictions. That's a patently false statement. Also, why is it that so many creationists/ID proponents try to tarnish evolution with the label "religion" when almost all of them are themselves religious and primarily object to evolution because it is incompatible with their religious convictions?AMW_{October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Yah, man, it is religion. The good news is heresy is more fun. The man on the street responds to ID with joy because he's weary of the dead-bang serious pronouncements of the textbook writers. After all, the ruling class can't win their war on common sense forever.allanius_{October 14, 2010
October
10
Oct
14
14
2010
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply