Evidence for God from Science

Many atheists consider ID to be psuedo science but recently I've been talking to atheists that say it's just "religion in disguise."

So my question is the following: Why isn't ID religion?

JC333 wrote:Many atheists consider ID to be psuedo science but recently I've been talking to atheists that say it's just "religion in disguise."

So my question is the following: Why isn't ID religion?

I would think that since evolution is, weather those who hold firm to it or not know it, a religion, it would not be out of the question for some to treat ID as religion also.

But IMO it would be an empty religion because of the absence of Christ. There are those whom I ahve talked to that believe in ID, yet deny that Jesus had any part in it. And even their veiw on ID is flawed because they tie it in with evolution. Their point is that ID may have started the whole thing but evolution took over and pushed aside the creator.

Open any dictionary and look up 'Religion.' You will find something along these lines:

Religion: The body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context. (Merriam Webster)

Here, from a French dictonary (my translation):

Religion: 1. A system of beliefs and dogmas defining man's relationship with the sacred. 2. A system of practices and rites relating to a given faith. (Le petit larousse)

So, ID isn't a religion because it doesn't fit the definition of a religion.

FL

JC333 wrote:Many atheists consider ID to be psuedo science but recently I've been talking to atheists that say it's just "religion in disguise."

So my question is the following: Why isn't ID religion?

Main issue here is that ID does not require that the designer be a supernatural deity. A majority of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis...

I accept evolution but I'm not so dogmatic about it that it's a religion to me - I recognize that it's possible that I'm wrong.

Well neither ID nor evolution are religions. That's the equivalent of saying that gravity is a religion. They are scientific theories that ay or amy not be wrong. There are those who "preach" them but that still doesn't make them religions. Just because something has a following doesn't make it a religion. Is democracy a religion? No. Yet many people devote their lives to it. Are human rights a religion? No. Yet many people devote their lives to getting human rights. Just because something has a following doesn't amke it a religion even if that following may be near-fanatical. Religion implies the supernatural (depending on your definition of supernatural) and the spiritual. Chrisitanity is spiritual, Buddhism is spiritual, Islam is spiritual, Paganism is spiritual etc. Nobody (well at least in my experience) has said that evolution and/or ID are spiritual beliefs. Although it's possible that they could be used as a foundation for a religion but in their own right they are not religions.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:So, ID isn't a religion because it doesn't fit the definition of a religion.

FL

Absolutly, nor does it fit the definition of the word sacred; 1. Dedicated to or set apart for worship, 2. Made or declared holy, 3. Worthy of religious veneration.

Intelligent Design could also denote the accomplishments of humans- e.g. a beautiful hand made boat, or a work of art, or many other things designed from intelligence. Even a bird exhibits ID in building a nest.

I have debated some of the worshippers of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris about ID and at times it would rile their feathers when I told them that scientific experiments were by intelligent design, ( one writer told me the subject we were discussing had nothing to do with ID. I ask him if the experiment was done by beings other than human or were the scientists unintelligent?)

ID isn't a religion, but it aslo certainly isn't scientific.

mrpinz wrote:ID isn't a religion, but it aslo certainly isn't scientific.

And Darwinian macro-evolution is? Yet it is taught as such.

"Macro" evolution only exists in the minds of creationists. Modern science makes no such distinction. We could be swayed if you could tell me when "lots of micro" becomes "macro" and what can possibly stop that from being so. Does God go "whoa whoa whoa, let's stop evolving now"? lol

Himantolophus wrote:"Macro" evolution only exists in the minds of creationists. Modern science makes no such distinction. We could be swayed if you could tell me when "lots of micro" becomes "macro" and what can possibly stop that from being so. Does God go "whoa whoa whoa, let's stop evolving now"? lol

I've heard both micro and macro used within modern science and scientific journals. Are you sure you are not meaning "Himantolophus science"?

K wrote:I've heard both micro and macro used within modern science and scientific journals. Are you sure you are not meaning "Himantolophus science"?

Well, he must. Look at what he said:

Himantolophus wrote:Modern science makes no such distinction. We could be swayed . . .

Hmmm . . .

I think the term macroevolution is being used less and less. They are still used in scientific circles but not, perhaps, in the same application or in the same frequency as even 10 years ago. I see this in the new textbook editions. The textbooks are referring less to macroevolution and I do think that this has, in some degree, roots in the creation/evolution debate. So many creationists were using micro and macro that their response has been to dissolve the boundary.

Look, as soon as we are examining events that occurred int he past, we are not in the realm of microevolution, or if you want, observable and testable evolution. We are essentially using circumstantial evidence to solve a puzzle.

With that in mind, saying that organism X and organism Y are related because of clues derived from similiarities in bones or DNA is still something that is locked in the past. We are still *trusting* and having faith in something that we will never be able to observe ourselves, both because of the time limitations (it takes so many years) and because it happened in the past.

In addition, you *certianly* can't use this evidence as any proof against a supernatural agent. By the naturalists own definition, they cannot make any statement concerning the existence of a supernatural bing.

Kurieuo wrote:

Himantolophus wrote:"Macro" evolution only exists in the minds of creationists. Modern science makes no such distinction. We could be swayed if you could tell me when "lots of micro" becomes "macro" and what can possibly stop that from being so. Does God go "whoa whoa whoa, let's stop evolving now"? lol

I've heard both micro and macro used within modern science and scientific journals. Are you sure you are not meaning "Himantolophus science"?

doesn't matter, you still haven't "drawn the line" where one becomes the other. Species to species, genus to genus, family to family? What?

"Macro" and "micro" have entered the scientific vocabulary due to the creationist/ID controversy but the distinction between the two is undefined. No evolutionary change from one species to the next is so drastic as to be considered "macroevolution". Every evolutionary change we have observed is minor but the passage of long periods of time makes additional changes and the two forms diverge slowly. Looking back, the change appears more drastic, and thus the appearance of supposed "macroevolution", which is simply lots of accumulated "micro". No difference but timescale.

Jac3510 wrote:

K wrote:I've heard both micro and macro used within modern science and scientific journals. Are you sure you are not meaning "Himantolophus science"?

Well, he must. Look at what he said:

Himantolophus wrote:Modern science makes no such distinction. We could be swayed . . .

Hmmm . . .

I consider myself a scientist too as I am getting my masters in Marine Biology and I am currently working on a few projects which I'd consider scientific. Thanks for assuming otherwise

HImantoluphus,

I can find textbooks, valid scientific texts on evolution(surely they would be swayed on creations definitions!) and simply general college text that are a recent as 5-6 years old, that differentiated between the two.

I have also taken evolutionary classes where the professor (not friendly to religion, mind you) still used those terms.

Historically, those terms have simply been convenient to use to reference historical events versus short term population changes.

I received my undergraduate degree in 93 and they used those terms without cringing then. I htink the emphsis on no boundary really came when OEC and ID were willing to use those terms to establish boundaries. Then the response/reaction was to dissolve the common usage and stress the no boundary.

Mind you, this is from my experiences in my college classes, both undergrad and graduate, and from the books I used.