We Will if You Will

_{Barry Arrington

March 18, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to Dr. Torley’s post here, commenter Graham asks: “Can we now drop the pretense and just declare UD/ID to be religious”?

Well Graham, let’s think about that. ID theory posits that some observations are best explained as the result of the acts of an intelligent agent. The theory does not posit any particular agent and the agent need not be a deity. It could, for example, be the aliens Dawkins speculated about in his interview with Ben Stein.

To be sure, many ID proponents believe the intelligent agent is God. But that is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) posits that unguided material forces are sufficient to produce all that we see and thus there is no need for a designer. The obvious implication of the theory is that atheism is a valid scientific conclusion. Again, Dawkins: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Many proponents of NDE are atheists. But atheism is a possible implication of the theory, not part of the theory itself.

You ask if we can declare ID to be religious because some people take ID and run with its implications in theological directions. Well, a lot of people take NDE and run with its implications in theological directions. (Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position)

Tell you what, I am happy to call ID religious if you will also call NDE religous to the same extent. Deal?

Comments

You can't just lack a belief about God. Trees lack belief. Rocks lack belief. Cats lack belief. Humans do not. If you have ever heard or thought about God, you believe something about God. Is it really that difficult to understand?Leslie_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Clive:
The analogies of soccer and stamps don’t apply, for atheism is a belief, just like theism.
You are simply misdefining atheism. Theism is the belief in a God, atheism is the lack of belief in a God, it's as simple as that. If someone isn't convinced that bigfoot is real because they have no reason to be, is that a belief, or a lack of a belief?jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

NeilBJ:
I always find it interesting that atheists who deny the existence of God also contend to know the mind of their non-existent God. They seem to know exactly what God would or would not do.
If someone says "Darth Vader was a sweet, caring, thoughtful guy," and I respond "No he wasn't, he was evil, selfish, and power hungry," does that mean that I'm professing a belief in the existence of Darth Vader? No. Most of the time, skeptics are merely pointing out logical contradictions in theist's claims about God. They're not necessarily saying things like "God wouldn't send people to hell, or create organisms in such a way that they looked like they evolved," as much as they're pointing out that "It is inconsistent to think that your God as you describe him would torture people for eternity (because you say He's omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and infinitely merciful)" or "It is inconsistent to think that your God as you describe him would create things that look like they are the end result of common ancestry & natural selection. (because you say he is infinitely creative, and omnipotent, so He would have no design constraints on Him.) You don't have to 'believe' in a character that you think is fictional in order to point out logical contradictions in descriptions of it by people who do believe in it.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

I think the distinction about atheism vs religion is that atheism is a belief about religion, not a belief in religion.Pedant_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

jurrasicmac,
Has this point not been made clearly thousands of times already? Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and therefore a lack of a religious belief. There are atheists who have other religious beliefs, like Buddhists, but atheism itself isn’t a ‘religious’ belief any more than ‘not playing’ soccer is a sport, or ‘not being a doctor’ is a profession.
The analogies of soccer and stamps don't apply, for atheism is a belief, just like theism.Clive Hayden_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Barry:
Atheism is nothing if not a “religous” position.
Not collecting stamps is nothing if not a "hobby" Sigh. Has this point not been made clearly thousands of times already? Atheism is a lack of belief in God, and therefore a lack of a religious belief. There are atheists who have other religious beliefs, like Buddhists, but atheism itself isn't a 'religious' belief any more than 'not playing' soccer is a sport, or 'not being a doctor' is a profession.jurassicmac_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

The Big Bang also implicates a creator. Is it therefore not a scientific theory?Collin_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

I found this quote yesterday. It is very telling to the fact that neo-Darwinism functions exactly like a religion; In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. – Philip Skell http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/08/29/10/1/ In fact Dr. Behe did exactly what Dr. Skell suggested in this following video at the 6:54 minute mark, and removing the word evolution had absolutely no effect on the paper's core; Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY ---------- Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher http://www.icr.org/article/455/bornagain77_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Oh, dear! You're using logic and reasoning; that will never do!Ilion_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Those who call intelligent design a religious theory should clean their own house first by getting rid of all their (anti) religious reasoning in support of the theory of evolution -- except that such reasoning really does not support the theory. Such reasoning can succeed only to the extent that it raises doubts in the minds of the theists. Such evidence starved reasoning does nothing to bolster the case for evolution. I always find it interesting that atheists who deny the existence of God also contend to know the mind of their non-existent God. They seem to know exactly what God would or would not do. Don't we really want to know what evolution can or cannot do?NeilBJ_{March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply