Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » IS ID RELIGIOUS?

IS ID RELIGIOUS?

Filed at 11:11 am under by dcobranchi

OK, this is going to be a bit different. And I’m really not sure exactly how to pull off the formatting, but I’m going to give it a shot. What I propose is to work through a simple proof to show that ID is a religious concept. What I’m going to do is post a single step at a time and ask for comments. I’ll post these in reverse order to the normal way the blog works. IOW, this post will stay at the top and subsequent posts will come below. I intend to back up everything I say with external links.

Does that make any sense?

8 Responses to “IS ID RELIGIOUS?”


Comment by
Kay Brooks
December 23rd, 2005
at 12:09 pm

Kinda.

But I’ll ask right off the bat and maybe jump ahead of you: how do you define religious? Something that is worshipped? Or is just recognition of some higher power religious? Or is it the New Testament definition of faith: (Heb 11:1 KJV) “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

And if it’s just faith…let’s make sure that we recognize the faith element in every theory, not just the ID one.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 23rd, 2005
at 12:20 pm

Religious as in biblically based. Religious as opposed to secular in nature.


Comment by
Kay Brooks
December 23rd, 2005
at 12:28 pm

Why is it religious if it’s Biblical when not all religions are based in/on the Bible? Your statement “religious as opposed to secular’ still leaves ‘religion’ inadequately defined imo. Especially, in a day and age when ‘secularism’ is often described as a religion itself.


Comment by
COD
December 23rd, 2005
at 12:42 pm

Maybe you should make that proof that ID is a Christian concept. Buddhism and many eastern religions don’t have any problem with evolution and a universe that is hundreds of millions of years old.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 23rd, 2005
at 12:43 pm

Because the debate surrounding ID is that it is creationism in sheep’s clothing. Dave (and the DI) deny that ID is religious. I’m just using their terminology. “Contrary to Judge John Jones’ assertions, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. “


Comment by
Dave
December 23rd, 2005
at 1:11 pm

I think your approach makes sense. I would recommend that you try to establish definitions for a small number of key terms that you intend to use. References are helpful, but your proof should not require them.

And to get this rolling, lets be clear on what you are trying to prove: Is it (1)
advocates of ID are motivated by religious beliefs (2) that the concept of ID as defined by DI is religious in nature.

I “hear” you saying (2), but I think it would be helpful if you included the definition of ID that you intend to show is religious in nature.


Comment by
Kay Brooks
December 23rd, 2005
at 1:17 pm

Well, I’d concede that SOME IDers are motivated by their Christian religion…but certainly not ALL.

And why does DI get to define ID? Isn’t that kinda like HSLDA defining hsing?


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 23rd, 2005
at 1:35 pm

I am not going into the motivations of IDists. It is beyond my ability to ascribe motives to anyone. I intend to show that the terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” are interchangeable. IOW if A=B and B=C, A=C.

The DI is the leading advocate of ID.