Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is ID largely supported by Christians?

December 18, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In America, you bet. 80% of the American population is Christian. Do the math. Connect the dots. Anything with broad support in America can be expected, not surprisingly, to have 80% of its support from Christians.

Comments
jmcd According to some, that's correct, but don't look at me for confirmation. I don't believe that's correct. I think trying to walk the walk is more important than talking the talk. But if you're already walking the walk then talking the talk doesn't take much extra effort. Better safe than sorry.DaveScot
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
So an atheist who adhered to the teachings of Christ would go to hell whereas someone who aknowledged Jesus as divine, led a generally crummy life, but repented will go to heaven?jmcd
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
franky It's still better than nothing.DaveScot
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
DaveScot A prudent person hedges their bets. The downside being an atheist and being wrong about it might be pretty painful. The downside of being a theist and being wrong about it is no harm. Of course, this assumes that you've chosen the right God, and that God respects "hedging one's bet" as a foundation for belief, amongst other problems.franky172
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
new.atheist A prudent person hedges their bets. The downside being an atheist and being wrong about it might be pretty painful. The downside of being a theist and being wrong about it is no harm.DaveScot
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
What if I do have a soul? Then I'll find out when I'm dead. I'm not totally object to the idea; sometimes I think what if my soul gets to continue exist in a parallel universe? I honestly don't think what I believe will have any bearing on what will actually happen when I die. And if I do have a soul, I would think so do birds, dogs, cats, trees, and all other life.new.atheist
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Shaner; you're right, it is better to say “It’s just that the more one learns, the more one also learns how the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally.” When I speak of natural vs. super-natural, I'm saying that anything super-natural is, to put it most simply, anything that would break the laws of physics. The idea of a deity (as I see it) is that he is all-powerful, and therefore super-natural (above the natural laws of the universe). I'm not saying the cause for this universe doesn't lie outside of this universe, I'm saying I don't believe that the laws of this universe can be broken from within this universe. How do I define best without a god?... I dunno how "best" is defined with god, even after the rules laid down in the "divinely inspired" books, it's still hard to always tell what's "best." Personally I try to live by; treat others as you'd prefer to be treated, and never stop learning. And Ekstasis; I don't think that the Bible doesn't contain some history, but what I see is the bible is a mash up of history and allegorical stories told to illustrate points, instead of to be taken literally. People who write down stories of history often tend to exaggerate, often tend to tell just their side/opinion, and often aren't writing it down as it happened. So I don't think history happened exactly as it was written down in the bible, (it's still the case today, with all the media available, that not everything is reported/recorded accurately). And I definitely don't believe any of the "history" written in the bible was really super-natural in nature. People used to (and still do) make up stories of the super-natural to explain what they couldn't otherwise explain. I don't doubt that much archaeological evidence for events/places in the bible and of Jewish or Christian tradition to be found. (I watch way too much of the history channel not to http://www.history.com/shows.do?EGrpType=Series&Id=274739) But none of that evidence will ever prove god actually ever spoke directly to anyone. That's what faith is for. If you had proof of god, it wouldn't be faith.new.atheist
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
I would say that I thought all deists had to be IDers; That's how I figure it too -- although technically you don't have to be one to accept ID. I personally have no problem if I don’t have a soul, Oh, but what if you do?tribune7
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
“It’s just that the more science one learns; the more one also learn how the bible isn’t the literal truth, and I have no doubt that causes more than a few of them to loose their faith all together.” Well, but is it necessary for history and science to intersect? Is Archaelogy science? Could we say the opposite -- the more we learn from history and archaelogy, the more the bible skeptics will lose their contra-faith? Hmmm. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html We do not have the time here to hit on the mountains of evidence. Just one or two: Take the approximately 2 million Jews that escaped Egypt and spent 40 years in the desert. Just how did they find the food and water for this? Oh yes, we know of all the naturalistic theories -- eating coriander seeds, etc. Yep, they found and distributed 1500 tons of it every single day, just lying around in the desert!! And the skeptics of the past loved to laugh at how ole' Pharaoh's daughter took a 200 mile trek from her palace just to find wee little Moses afloat in his little basket. What a joke!! But then, lo and behold, a summer palace was discovered a few hundred yards from where the Jews lived!! Anyone hear any skeptics voicing messages of humility, and wondering whether the new evidence might shake their faith? Nope, just dead silence, as they continued their fevered efforts on the holy grail -- the origins of life projects that have produced such a null set of results. Lets do a balanced scorecard -- a side-by-side evaluation of the progress made in biblical archaelogy vs. origins of life and explaining the pathway for life as we know it, shall we??Ekstasis
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
How would a Darwinist approach remote veiwing's entity "universal mind." Say it's nonexistent? In certain circles it is common knowledge that one can query the remote veiwers at Ft. Meade to find the truth in matters, that something actually occured. Further , the Pentagon does not distribute paychecks to its remote veiwers for doing nothing...platolives
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT
#4 bfast: Darwinism: Atheism and Psuedoscience IDism: Science and Theism (Choice contingency is a theoretical 'term' which refers to a theoretical 'entity.' This entity is difficult to think about. What are its attributes? IDists, teleologists, informationists understand the uniqueness of this choosing, selecting entity. Many scientists as well as IDists see it effects. The critics are simply not thinking--which is why they label IDists as Creationists.) Your comment helped me intuit that this whole mess is the result of both one's belief that 1) the propositition "god exists" is false (atheism), and 2) an unphilosophical doctrine about the origin-of-life (Darwinism). An IDists can both scientifically and logically believe that an intelligent agency exists and, when you think about this agency, I mean really think, one can grasp some amazing concepts which existed before man emerged. There is a wide range of research opportunities because Darwin's mechanisms of cause, NS and RM, cannot fully explain a theory of origins.platolives
December 19, 2006
December
12
Dec
19
19
2006
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
jb, "So, is there, then any sort of consensus on what, exacltly ID is?" The essence of ID is what I said already: looking at biological systems and features and asking the question, "is this designed? And if so, how can we determine it? Does it make more sense to considered this a designed thing than the alternative?" And so forth. The particulars are being worked out. And it may never be possible to achieve what the ID people are after. But that's beside the point.mike1962
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
"No you’re right. Noone believes in the Bible. Noone. That’s not exaggeration." That is an exaggeration. What are Young Earth Creationists if not people that believe the entirety of the Bible?StephenA
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
“It’s just that the more science one learns; the more one also learn how the bible isn’t the literal truth, and I have no doubt that causes more than a few of them to loose their faith all together.” Yes probably. But literal truth pertaining to what? Nature? God? From my own experience, I would re-word what you said to be “It’s just that the more one learns, the more one also learns how the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally” For example, a literal tree in a garden, or literal days of creation. But a “tree” being used as a metaphor, like any good author would do, is a different thing entirely – an idea I see atheists and many Christians completely unwilling to entertain. And as far as Jesus is concerned, I’ve never been able to take literally the sayings of a man who spoke in riddles. Now, I must confess I see NDE as incapable of converting the masses to atheism in its present condition. IMHO, the area of science that has the greatest convert-to-atheist potential is neuroscience. If it could be shown conclusively that mind (consciousness, spirit, soul, whatever you prefer to call it) comes from matter, then the ballgame is over – or at least, it’s the bottom of the 9th, 2 out, and atheists are up by a few dozen with Charlie Darwin on the mound throwing 110 mph. fastballs. “It’s very hard to believe in universe that is completely natural (science) if one also believes in the super-natural.” I don’t really understand that. Are you saying it’s hard to believe in a natural universe if that universe has a cause for its existence not contained in that universe? Since if it’s not contained within the universe, can science ever know about it? “All I can do is live my life the best I can today; nothing more.” In the end, yes, but I think the problem becomes: how do I define “best” if there is no God? I sometimes wonder if atheists could know for sure if there was a God or not, would they actually want to know? Not because there might really be a God, but because they could be right and there might not be. We all live as if there is a God and the “I” we call ourselves actually exists.shaner74
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Might never makes right.... I would say that I thought all deists had to be IDers; they believe in a higher power that created everything, however how they think he went about creating/designing stuff may differ. So some Darwinists are for ID as well; they just think that their god works through the natural processes. Not all Christians see a conflict, since not all Christians think the whole bible is literal truth. I'll definitely agree that most atheists credit our existence to Evolution (thou I wouldn't call them Darwinists, since there has been a lot of scientific research since Darwin, and the theory of Evolution has been refined). But I do recognize that there are atheists who believe we were created by aliens who put our souls into volcanoes, or something like that. (What crazy religious ideas some people have huh?) Or that we live in something like the Matrix. I'd say generally atheists can not accept ID if that intelligent being was a super-natural (god-like) influence in our natural universe. I don't think Evolution and a deity necessarily rule each other out (even if I don't believe in the deity), they just aren't in the same catagory. It's just that the more science one learns; the more one also learn how the bible isn't the literal truth, and I have no doubt that causes more than a few of them to loose their faith all together. Religious people aren't shunned out of science (or I definitely don't think they should be) unless their religious beliefs interfere with their science. It's very hard to believe in universe that is completely natural (science) if one also believes in the super-natural. I personally have no problem if I don't have a soul, if I'm not special in this universe, and if a few million years ago my ancestors were apes, or cats, or bacteria, or a happenstance chemical reaction. All I can do is live my life the best I can today; nothing more.new.atheist
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Ekstasis, "humanity was endowed with consciousness, and a soul" - to be quite honest I get the impression that a lot of the "little old ladies" (who are probably most of the Christians if truth be told) don't restrict to humans - I'm not joking, I'd say that under hypnosis a good few would claim consciousness & a soul for their dog / cat. " beyond the material processes taking place in the cranium, and perhaps to some limited degree in other parts of the physical human body? And that these features very much exist, in an objective sense" - yup that's about it. Not really "beyond" though, more "in a parallel domain". To repeat I'm hazarding a guess at what Christians in the UK believe, not putting forward a position. Also do remember we're really a very very secular society when it comes to it - church-going is around 2%. More people watch live sport on a Sunday than attend religious service & anyone flaunting "belief" would never get elected. Jason "I can’t think of ANY form of Biblical Christianity that fits ". No you're right. Noone believes in the Bible. Noone. That's not exaggeration. We have Church of England archbishops who openly deny virginal birth / the more "bizarre" miracles & noone bats an eyelid, never mind the Old Testament which is left out of many Bibles as a bit embarassing. I'm not a Christian so I won't speak on anyone's behalf, but the holy book is not where anyone here's foundations lie. I don't know if in the US you have the "Jesus was a hippy" brand of Christianity - that's what all Christians are like here, it's all very "micro-socialism". As for "Did he create the universe"? I asked a Christian friend - they got exasperated. "God is way bigger, way beyond these petty parochial questions of our physical universe" they said. "By definition He transcends humanity and our evolution". So I guess there's space for ID to find an intelligence BETWEEN religion & naturalism...;-)littlejon
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
DaveScot wrote: “I’ve never understood why atheists feel they can’t accept ID. We know intelligence exists in at least one instance in the universe and we know that instance is able to tinker with genomes in increasingly sophisticated ways.” Yes that’s true, and it’s perfectly logical to conclude that some type of alien intelligence could have designed and sent life to earth. However, if you’re an atheist, and you admit that Darwin’s theory holds no water, you are left up a creek without a paddle, intellectually speaking. You have admitted that life as you know it is designed, but to remain grounded in your atheism, you then must appeal to some unknown mechanism for creating intelligence from matter without invoking a God, since the alien intelligence that designed us had to have come from non-intelligence for your atheism to be true. You still need the “blind watchmaker”, although now this blind man doesn’t know who Darwin is. And of course, the response of the theist in the absence of these aliens and their atheist testimony would be “Darwin was wrong here, why would he be right somewhere else?” And you, the poor atheist, has no response except to say that “I’ve never seen God, so He doesn’t exist” Now add to this a universe that goes “poof” into existence 13.5 billion years ago and also is “fine tuned” to a degree that seems almost incomprehensible, as well as spiritual leaders throughout human history insisting on there being a God, and your atheism becomes an untenable position entirely. So although ID doesn’t destroy atheism, the loss of Darwin is just too great to even consider design. “We don’t know where the universe came from and that doesn’t seem to bother them.” I think it bothers them terribly – they just won’t admit it because they still have father Darwin.shaner74
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
In reply to comment #9- I'd argue that it is a case that Christians in the UK probably haven't given the matter much thought. I can't think of ANY form of Biblical Christianity that fits with the idea that our bodies and everything outside of our mind came about in a blind watchmaker fashion. Heck, I don't even think you'd call that theism at all if God didn't create you, but rather merely threw a soul into an accidental body. Theorizing that God didn't create us then makes you wonder how that could even be coherent at all. Did he throw some things together and walk away...came back one day and added a soul to some higher form of ape? That sounds like deism to me. Did he create the universe...did it create him? Is a God that had nothing to do with creating my body, as the Bible clearly says he did, be all powerful? If he's all powerful, why would he just toss a few trillion souls into evolved apes? Did he toss souls into lower apes? It gets confusing...because you're veering away from the holy book in which your foundations lie, which means you can start to posit anything basically. What's to stop you? As I said- the idea seems totally inconsistent with Biblical Christianity and reason itself.JasonTheGreek
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
idnet said: "The “failure” of ID to gain universal acceptance amongst Christians results largely from the fact than almost no one defines ID using William Dembski’s definition." I think that many people do not recognize id for what it is because they identify id with the cultural movement to introduce God into the science classroom. While the DI has been careful in the past to say that they only want the problems of evolution discussed its stated goals would lead people to believe that the motives behind "teach the controversy" are not as genuine as the equitable phraseology implies. ID is esentially the argument from design reinforced with mathematics. It is certainly possible that design can be demonstrated in nature using current or refined techniques but it is far from generally accepted in the scientific community. I think that lack of acceptence leads many people to the conclusion that the only reason to bring up ID in the classroom at this point is because of its religious implications. If you seperate the cultural movement from the idea I think many people would at the very least be open to the possibility that design in nature can be confirmed. The bottom up approach is bound to breed conflict. I think a mid level approach may be the best strategy. The id organizations at universities are a great idea. These are young adults who can make up their own minds. Math and science majors who will take id friendly attitudes into their new professions would be very valuable. There is going to be discrimination. The law ought to shield people from the worst of it, but there is no way around the fact that it will be a hard fought battle just as every effort at changing scientific paradigms has been. Since it is such a big question with such tough answers that may well be beyond our reach for some time a parallel academic society may become a good idea. Sorry for rambling. In answer to the post. I think a lot more Christians would be iders if they identified id solely with its ideas and not an agenda.jmcd
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
tribune7: “God is a designer. Christians believe in God. All Christians are IDers.” idnet.com.au: "The 'failure' of ID to gain universal acceptance amongst Christians results largely from the fact than almost no one defines ID using William Dembski’s definition." mike1962: "ID starts with the evidence and asks 'is this designed by an intelligence?'" So, is there, then any sort of consensus on what, exacltly ID is? (I ask this not rhetorically, but truly because I don't know, being a newcomer to this subject).jb
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
tribune7, "God is a designer. Christians believe in God. All Christians are IDers." I reject this on the basis that Christians and other theists (often) start out with a book (Bible, Quran, Urantia, whatever), and then sift the physical evidence thru that sieve. ID starts with the evidence and asks "is this designed by an intelligence?" Completely different starting points. They are only associated by accident, not by cause.mike1962
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
The "failure" of ID to gain universal acceptance amongst Christians results largely from the fact than almost no one defines ID using William Dembski's definition. The other problem is the Darryl Falks of the world who believe by faith that detecting God by any scientific means is by definition impossible.idnet.com.au
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Michaels Is Darwinism largely supported by atheists? No. Atheists largely support Darwinism. If faith in Darwinian principles was limited to atheists we wouldn't be here talking about it as they're so small in number. It's interesting though that the National Academy of Science's membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with atheists representing 80% of its membership. I don't think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov't that the NAS enjoys. It's an atheist clique. Religious people need not apply.DaveScot
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
shaner74 I've never understood why atheists feel they can't accept ID. We know intelligence exists in at least one instance in the universe and we know that instance is able to tinker with genomes in increasingly sophisticated ways. The only thing ID posits is that there was or is another intelligence at work in the universe with capabilities somewhat more advanced than ours. If our technology advances a the current rate for another thousand years surely we'll be able to identify sterile, young earth-like planets around other stars and transport the beginnings of life to them. Where the intelligence that first created life as we know it came from is beside the point. We don't know where the universe came from and that doesn't seem to bother them. The first cause is a philosophical question that will likely never be answered by science. But that doesn't science can't identify and characterize secondary causes. The only people that ID leaves out are those who are faithfully committed to the proposition that no intelligence other than human intelligence exists now or ever in the history of the universe.DaveScot
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
littlejon, So, at some point, according to the prevailing belief on your side of the pond, is that humanity was endowed with consciousness, and a soul, features that extend beyond the material processes taking place in the cranium, and perhaps to some limited degree in other parts of the physical human body? And that these features very much exist, in an objective sense, as opposed to the material brain processes imagining them into "existence", much as an author imagines a work of fiction into existence?Ekstasis
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
All getting a bit USA-centric, if I may say. This side of the Atlantic (UK) 70% of the population claim to be Christian, & I'd estimate about 1% at most would claim any support for ID. There just isn't seen to be any clash at all between theism and Darwinism, and I think it is a little rude to say this is because people haven't thought about it. I'd say most British people are intuitive dualists - NDE fully explains our DNA, but "we" are more than our DNA, our bodies were created by blind watchmaker forces, but not our consciousnesses. I've even heard religious ministers express this - their God has no direct causal influence on the physical world, but operates at the "soul" level. Whether this is coherent is of course another matter...littlejon
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Back to the original point: "In America, you bet [ID is largely supported by Christians]. 80% of the American population is Christian. Do the math. Connect the dots. Anything with broad support in America can be expected, not surprisingly, to have 80% of its support from Christians. " So, in America, drivers of automobiles are predominantly "Christians", as are those who love vanilla, or chocolate, ice cream. Because that 80% must do something with their time and opinions, outside their church experience, so they can win all sorts of statistical competitions. So, the question than becomes, does the term "Christian" mean much of anything beyond being born into a "Christian" family, and inheriting the tradition of celebrating Christmas by going to a lot of parties and spending a lot of $$? If not, any correlation with practically anything will be primarily arbitrary. On the other hand, maybe we should look at those few people that are really serious. You know the ones -- they wake up and pray in the middle of the night instead of choosing cozy sleep, they give away their $$ instead of buying bigger homes and glitzy cars that offer automatic parallel parking, they return good for evil when mistreated, they ask their hotels to turn their cable off when on business trips because they will do anything to rise to a higher, purer plain of existence. We are talking about the sort of behaviour that Darwinian evolution can't explain but tries to anyway through all sorts of contrived and contradicting tall tales.Ekstasis
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Another question: is YEC a sub-set of ID? Most YEC's would certainly concur with design arguments and use them in their arsenal of arguments (and I believe AiG even sells one of Behe's book in its bookstore--though I'd have to double-check to make sure), so does this make all YEC's by definition IDer's? But the converse is certainly not true: All IDer's are certainly not YEC's. So one would seem to be be a sub-set of the other. And not only YEC, but OEC as well would appear to be by definition another sub-set of ID. There are also several Islamic Creationist organizations as well. I've seen some of their web sites (though I can't recall their addresses at this time). I'm not sure to what extent Islamic Creationism is YEC or OEC. I don't know a whole lot about Islam, but it would seem that their theology would require some sort of Creationism. So, I would think most Muslims would support some sort of Creationism or at least ID. And since Islam represents a rather large portion of the world population, I would say that the statment "most IDer's are Christians" is likely false. Although one would need to consider the question as to whether many Muslims and even Christians have even given the origins question enough thought to even say which model they support. So is the question "Are most people who actively and vocally support ID Christians?" or is it "Are most IDer's Christians?" I think these are two different questions, for one can accept the principles of ID as part of a religious package and not necessarily get in on the bandwagon of helping "the cause" in either activist or scientific endevours. And what is the Orthodox Jewish position on origins? (this is not rhetorical; I ask because I truly do not know). As to whether most Atheists are Darwinists, certainly most are. Although I've heard of a few Atheists who support ID, as odd as that sounds. Their version of ID is that some alien race is responsible for life on earth (wasn't Fred Hoyle of this persuasion?) Perhaps a "higher intelligence," they posit, but not necessarily "God."jb
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
“2 - Are most Darwinists Athiests? I propose not, in that true, non-agnostic, Athiests are a fairly rare breed.” I agree with you – no. I bet a lot of people who accept Darwinian evolution never even stop to think about what that means. “3 - Are most Athiests Darwinists? Proposal is “yes”.” I say YES. With what we currently know about our universe, I don’t think you can be an atheist without Darwin. If you are an atheist (not agnostic) and do not believe in Darwin’s brand of good ole’ fashioned “intelligence not required” evolution, then you have a screw loose. Belief in “blind watchmaker” evolution allows theories like m-theory to become mainstream, since, if life “evolved” without intelligent input, then the universe must have as well. “4 - Are most Christians IDers? I propose that the answer here is no.” Again I agree with you. If given a choice between ID and Darwin, most that understand what’s at stake would choose ID. However, if by ID we mean that life displays design (that’s all ID says), I think many Christians would not be in agreement unless you also said that life displays design, the earth is thousands of years old, and the designer is Jesus Christ.shaner74
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Are most Christians IDers? But that would depend on how ID is defined. It's generally a quite broad definition. You believe in a designer you accept ID. God is a designer. Christians believe in God. All Christians are IDers.tribune7
December 18, 2006
December
12
Dec
18
18
2006
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply