Evidence for God from Science

My friend animal believes that ID is creationism because creationism is "religious in origins" and therefore ID has relgious implications and is therefore non-scientific, animal claims that ID "IS" creationism in disguise. Animal believes I have evaded his concerns of ID being in fact religious and I have failed to present a logical argument for him that says otherwise.

Hi G/L,
If I recall properly, you and I have had discussions on this topic before.

If your opening post indeed reflects the contentions of Mr. Animal, then I agree with him. I wouldn't however say ID is non-scientific because it has religious implications, rather it is non-scientific because it is ... well ... unscientific. And it is definitely creationism. In fact, it must be to have any validy at all which is acceptable to Christians, otherwise you must acknowledge other "creative intelligences" apart from God or humankind.

(sorry just dropped briefly, saw this topic and couldn't resist commenting.)

Forum Monk wrote:Hi G/L,
If I recall properly, you and I have had discussions on this topic before.

If your opening post indeed reflects the contentions of Mr. Animal, then I agree with him. I wouldn't however say ID is non-scientific because it has religious implications, rather it is non-scientific because it is ... well ... unscientific. And it is definitely creationism. In fact, it must be to have any validy at all which is acceptable to Christians, otherwise you must acknowledge other "creative intelligences" apart from God or humankind.

(sorry just dropped briefly, saw this topic and couldn't resist commenting.)

Hey, Forum Monk! welcome back!

We have had the conversation before.

ID proponents are very clear that you do not have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. They are interested in investigating whether the universe shows design features. And a good way to examine how "creationist" ID is is to look at the actual creationists and how they like ID theory.

And those who followed previous conversations here saw that the staunch creationists are opposed to ID. THey feel that we "compromise" and give in to the evolutionists.

So from the creationist;s perspective, ID proponents are NOT creationists. (note, I am not disagreeing that the ID movement developed from the larger grouping of creationism, however, this merely speaks of how they diverged from the group. Their philosophies are quite different...)

Are many ID'ers Christian? Sure....does that make the "foundational message/investigative parameters" only Christian? no

If by creationists you simply mean those that look for supernatural evidence, then you must clarify terms.

Yes, we did in fact discuss this before. But as it appears to be the same, it is completely different altogether. The reason it is completely different it would be ample time to look into the question of whether " scientific theories" that have religious implications can have scientific status. ID is certainly NOT creationism and as much as the "public" denies this, as time marches on, it will only gain acceptance as a scientific theory.

The problem I have is that I believe the main reason WHY ID is not accepted as a scientific theory, is because it has so-called religious origins as animal has indicated. Animal being a) atheist with a agenda b) ill-informed about ID because he is a atheist with an agenda and exposed to other atheists with agendas and c) because of a and b, is immune to scientific theories that have so-called religious origins or religious implications. Animal will most definitely reject scientific theories, and accept scientific theories that have no religious origins. So in effect, not only is much of scientific exploration left in the dust, hard-predictive scientific theories that scrutinize soft-scientific theories such as Darwinism, will lose legitimacy and we will soon have Dawkins dressed up in jewelry at the top of mount everest, claiming to be our god with his followers: animal, peggliuci and the others praising Dawkins for his wonderful fairytale of DE.

People need to understand that just because you say you believe in Christ or God or read the Bible that you are right with "God". Many creationists think that since they use the word "God" or "Christ" they they somehow have a stronghold with the living God and understand God's word (that being the Bible) completely... Again, nothing could be further from the truth.. You can use the words "God" and "Christ" all you want. Because they mean absolutely nothing... It's in people's "actions" or "fruit" you will be able to tell if they walk spiritually.

It is true that the religious case for ID is neutral.. But then again you could say that the Judeo-Christian God is neutral as well. They are merely words. It's what you ATTRIBUTE to the words which is important not the words themselves. Again let's let "God" judge our hearts, not us.. Who knows whom God deems truthful in his eyes? Supposed Christian or non-Christian? Does anyone?

As for ID being unscientific, the same could be said for Darwinian evolution as well when it comes to things like chemical evolution. Again both theories (ID or DE) are merely what they are.. They are only "theories". Neither have been proven to be completely factual. None of the two theories have one up over the other.. YOU be the judge...

I agree with what Zoegirl says.

Don't get me wrong, if ID was in fact creationism, I wouldn't even bother making the distinction. I am a creationist, and I honestly do not consider ID being equal to creationism.

Gman wrote:People need to understand that just because you say you believe in Christ or God or read the Bible that you are right with "God". Many creationists think that since they use the word "God" or "Christ" they they somehow have a stronghold with the living God and understand God's word (that being the Bible) completely... Again, nothing could be further from the truth.. You can use the words "God" and "Christ" all you want. Because they mean absolutely nothing... It's in people's "actions" or "fruit" you will be able to tell if they walk spiritually.

Hi Gman, agreed.

As for ID being unscientific, the same could be said for Darwinian evolution as well when it comes to things like chemical evolution. Again both theories (ID or DE) are merely what they are.. They are only "theories". Neither have been proven to be completely factual. None of the two theories have one up over the other.. YOU be the judge...

Exactly, the point of this thread was to also investigate on whether theories such as ID, Creationism, or for that matter ANY other theory that may have religious origins or implications is automatically classified as a non-scientific theory. Asking anyone out there if DE is a legitimate scientific theory, the responses will only solidify the point I am implying here.

Look at what Kenneth Miller, a leading evolutionist on the subject has said about ID, more specifically a response to Behe's claim:

"In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence."

The "scientific community" (whichever community K. Miller is referring too here) has in fact denied ID because it has "religious origins or implications", NOT because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the soft science claims of Darwinian evidence, which is what I think he meant to say.

godslanguage wrote:The problem I have is that I believe the main reason WHY ID is not accepted as a scientific theory, is because it has so-called religious origins as animal has indicated. Animal being a) atheist with a agenda b) ill-informed about ID because he is a atheist with an agenda and exposed to other atheists with agendas and c) because of a and b, is immune to scientific theories that have so-called religious origins or religious implications. Animal will most definitely reject scientific theories, and accept scientific theories that have no religious origins. So in effect, not only is much of scientific exploration left in the dust, hard-predictive scientific theories that scrutinize soft-scientific theories such as Darwinism, will lose legitimacy and we will soon have Dawkins dressed up in jewelry at the top of mount everest, claiming to be our god with his followers: animal, peggliuci and the others praising Dawkins for his wonderful fairytale of DE.

i like how on this board, which keeps name calling in check, could allow this. we (as atheists) were told we could stay as long as we were civil and spoke in a manner that respected all. i have disagreed with some in the past but a clean debate is what i am always after. it appears 'godlanguage' does not follow the same board rules as i do. i remember reading a rule that said something about making unsourced, sweeping generalizations then something like this: "b) ill-informed about ID because he is a atheist with an agenda and exposed to other atheists with agendas" will fly. kudos guys, well played. if you disagree do you a) engage is discourse with reasoning or b) insult and degrade. 'godslanguage' it's your choice.

the name 'godslanguage' is ironic in itself... perhaps the reason animal is an atheist is because gods language was always this spiteful towards him.

As atheists, please don't expect me to believe you don't believe I am a ill-informed theist, just say it YaDinka, there is no true shame in holding back. Yes, this forum is moderated and will have me kicked quicker then my eyes could ever blink, but I don't believe I have crossed the boarder yet, and I do not wish too either. I believe in a civil debate, but if the time comes and I may get out of hand, there would be ample reason for no longer being a member of this forum.

the name 'godslanguage' is ironic in itself... perhaps the reason animal is an atheist is because gods language was always this spiteful towards him.

I am sure "Gods language" or what you really meant to say "Gods word" is incredibly evil and Dawkins along with animal must fight against this incredibly evil plague who spread this "word" or "language".

I am also sure Animal is an atheist due to the fact Gods word has been spiteful towards him, the reason it has been spiteful towards him is probably not the reason you suggest YaDinka, more likely the reason is because he is in complete denial.

godslanguage wrote:

the name 'godslanguage' is ironic in itself... perhaps the reason animal is an atheist is because gods language was always this spiteful towards him.

I am sure "Gods language" or what you really meant to say "Gods word" is incredibly evil and Dawkins along with animal must fight against this incredibly evil plague who spread this "word" or "language".

don't put words in my mouth. i can represent myself fine, thanks. and no i don't think you are a 'misinformed' theist. i may in the future, but at this point i haven't really discussed anything with you. i was only commenting on the double standard that is here with regards to your (extremely) abrasive tone. reread my post, that is all i said.

zoegirl wrote:ID proponents are very clear that you do not have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. They are interested in investigating whether the universe shows design features. And a good way to examine how "creationist" ID is is to look at the actual creationists and how they like ID theory.

C'mon. Let's stop this side-stepping and deduct that which is most obvious.

Here in America, especially, almost all of the advocates of ID believe in the Judeo-Christian deity. There intent is rather obvious as to imply who the 'intelligent-designer' might be even if they establish intelligent cause. I doubt those like Michael Behe or William Dembski will claim it to be a super-intelligent alien species over their beloved savior...

This is a fair accusation for the ID community and a reasonable deduction - especially if on another note, you're going to accuse the majority of atheists of being belligerent.

zoegirl's entry of another post wrote:IT may be a pleasant surprise to have a polite discussion with an atheist....but it is a surprise nontheless. If we have talked to 20 atheists and only one of them was a pleasant experience, why wouldn't we come to a discussion with an atheist with suspicion and wariness? Dawkins and his discpiples have made it an art form to attack religion in general and Christians specifically. The scorn, derision, and downright hatred of some atheists is rather amazing to observe. Why shouldn't we be suspicious?

And if such an accusation and deduction is not fair to make - then please explain how you are not being hypocritical...

godslanguage wrote:The problem I have is that I believe the main reason WHY ID is not accepted as a scientific theory, is because it has so-called religious origins as animal has indicated. Animal being a) atheist with a agenda b) ill-informed about ID because he is a atheist with an agenda and exposed to other atheists with agendas and c) because of a and b, is immune to scientific theories that have so-called religious origins or religious implications. Animal will most definitely reject scientific theories, and accept scientific theories that have no religious origins. So in effect, not only is much of scientific exploration left in the dust, hard-predictive scientific theories that scrutinize soft-scientific theories such as Darwinism, will lose legitimacy and we will soon have Dawkins dressed up in jewelry at the top of mount everest, claiming to be our god with his followers: animal, peggliuci and the others praising Dawkins for his wonderful fairytale of DE.

It's nice to be appreciated.

Keep making your assumptions as to what I know and don't know, its amusing.

In any case, to the point of this thread. Is ID non-scientific because it has religious implications? Yes and it also is non-scientific because although it wants the language and credibility of science - it does not want to be bound by its rules and methods. Take Behe's own concession,for example. Behe concedes that intelligent design does not offer a working model of how ID works. It merely is an argument from ignorance - an inability to understand how a biological entity works implies that it must be designed.

godslanguage would argue otherwise, of course. But so much for being in denial.

Can we please Stick to the Topic!!! That includes both parties! There has been too much Tone already on the Board in the last 2 months.

Thank You

I would have to disagree that ID is non-scientific if it were religious in origins.

Ideas do not have to come via strict rules of the scientific method to become a theory within science. They only have to withstand critical analysis and experimentation.

However, ID is non-scientific.

The belief that something is too complex to have originated naturally is simply a challenge. The challenge is to understand the complexity and find if there are naturalistic pathways to it. So far as I see it there is no reason to abandon evolutionary theory and simply say it is much too complex to solve.

Ideas such as specified complexity and irreducible complexity seem to represent mental challenges. The mechanisms for which both arise have been detailed exhaustively in scientific circles. Although recently these mechanisms have been reclarified specifically to address the ideas found in ID, they have been identified for quite some time. What I say next may seem condescending, and if it does I apologize in advance. The understanding of these mechanisms appears to be difficult for some to grasp. But I can only say that in a universe in which cause and effect can be determined, it is not surprising that organized systems emerge. Only if the laws of the universe were fluid would I then be surprised that complex systems could emerge over time.

ID is not a scientific theory simply because there is as of yet there is no evidence for the mechanisms which have been proposed.
And, there are no experiments yet devised to provide for this evidence.