Intellegent Design without Christianity?

Are there any examples of people who support the idea of I.D over evolution who are not Christian or followers of other major religions?

I was just wondering if anyone who didnt beleive in God beleives that we were designed intellegently, or if this idiocy is a natural product of too much religion and too little education.

Uncle Joe, there are a couple of books, "IN SIX DAYS, WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION" edited by an Australian (sorry can't give you editors or publishers names as my copies haven't 'boomeranged' back to me) that are divided into two parts. One part is essays by those who believed first and the other part by those who came to believe BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK IN SCIENCE. The C.V's of these people are not unimpressive.

You asked for it....

www.venganza.org...

The Flying Spagetti Monster actually has the EXACT same chance of being the designer as God does.

Stop worring about creationist. Right or wrong, the evolutionist will keep making medicine and running society and keeping them all alive and evolving.

Some people believe in alien intervention and that we should clone and have sex with ourselves (for some reason), others saw the Matrix and think that's real and some especially ambitious existential phenomonologists see no evidence to the contrary that they made the world.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Uncle Joe, there are a couple of books, "IN SIX DAYS, WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION" edited by an Australian (sorry can't give you editors or publishers names as my copies haven't 'boomeranged' back to me) that are divided into two parts. One part is essays by those who believed first and the other part by those who came to believe BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK IN SCIENCE. The C.V's of these people are not unimpressive.

Not impressive enough to have their 'findings' be accepted by the REAL scientific community.. especially since the title says 'six days'.. if the title is meant literally they are not credible scientists. A scientist just can't dismiss all inconvenient evidence and still call him/herself a scientist.. if they do that they've given up the right to use that label IMO.

Hey Uncle Joe asked, I answered. Argue with the scientists in the books not me. As to not being credible, well their employers seem to think they're credible and I'm sure you wouldn't mind some of their jobs, with the pay and respect they hold. One of them that springs to mind (it's been years since I had/read the books) invented the ear implant for deaf folk.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Hey Uncle Joe asked, I answered. Argue with the scientists in the books not me.

You posted.. I responded.

As to not being credible, well their employers seem to think they're credible and I'm sure you wouldn't mind some of their jobs, with the pay and respect they hold.

Why are you sure? Please tell me how much pay I earn and the respect my profesional status grants me.. You know what they say about assumptions.

One of them that springs to mind (it's been years since I had/read the books) invented the ear implant for deaf folk.

Well that little little invention definently proves dinosaurs didn't exist 160 thousand years ago!
Christians can be doctors too.. how does that prove a young earth? Or a christian mechanical engineer? A christian psychologist? These are their chosen sciences. I'm reading this online now.. these testimonies are meant to be professionally refuting the 'old earth' fact from a scientific standpoint.. yet they are not professionals in the fields that are actually relevent in proving or disproving tha age of the planet.. they are only there because they hold a BS in SOMETHING.. doesn't seem to matter if that something is basket weaving so long as it says 'scientist' and they can count em up to 50.
I have not found a paleantologist as yet in the group but I'll keep looking..
www.answersingenesis.org...

[edit on 23-8-2005 by riley]

Sorry if you thought I was having a go at you Riley, I wasn't. I was just pointing out that these aren't a bunch of fruitloops in their dad's garage but respected scientists. They work in many relevent fields....just read their stuff and know who you're dissing before you tell everyone why they arn't credible.

Riley, I get the feeling you don't like/respect Christians. Do you disregard everything all Christians say/write/believe or just the stuff that that doesn't fit with your opinion?

They work in many relevent fields....just read their stuff and know who you're dissing before you tell everyone why they arn't credible.

I know who I'm 'dissing' and I've been reading.. most DO NOT work in the relevent fields and are therefore not experts in them and are speaking as leymen. The reason why I do not like the idea of this book is that it's title infers that they know what they are talking about in regard to the relevent sciences when they are not qualified to be talking about them as 'experts'. That would be like asking an astronomer the specific on heart surgery.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Riley, I get the feeling you don't like/respect Christians. Do you disregard everything all Christians say/write/believe or just the stuff that that doesn't fit with your opinion?

The persecution card.. :shk:
Believe it or not.. I like FACTS.. most christians accept scientific FACTS and do not believe the planet is 6000 years old. It is ignorance and the promotion of ignorance I do not like or respect.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by riley]

Uncle Joe
Intellegent Design without Christianity?....

...I was just wondering if anyone who didnt beleive in God beleives that we were designed intellegently, or if this idiocy is a natural product of too much religion and too little education.

Michael Behe is one of the more prominent advocates of Intelligent Design Theory, he holds a PhD. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania. Here's a quote from him: "The theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments…" (See "Design for Living," New York Times, February 7, 2005.).

Most opponents of the theory would argue it's stealth Creationism and it certainly can be, but it makes no predictions or assumptions as to whom the designer is ... supernatural or otherwise. I as a christian can as easily "plug-in" GOD, as a non-believer could "plug-in" aliens(or whatever). There are even some Christians and Muslims(perhaps others as well) who argue IDT is sacreligous in that it goes out of the way to make no mention of GOD/Allah, opting instead for the generic "intelligent designer" in hopes of maintaining some credibility in the scientific community. Although some Muslims and Christians have found a common ground in Intelligent Design Theory.

Interestingly, Said Nursi, in the 1950s, foresaw an alliance between Islam and Christianity against materialism. He prophetically wrote, “A tyrannical current born of naturalist and materialist philosophy will gradually gain strength and spread at the end of time, reaching such a degree that it denies God. ... Although defeated before the atheistic current while separate, Christianity and Islam will have the capability to defeat and rout it as a result of their alliance” (Nursi, Letters, s. 77-78). Half a century after Nursi, the stage for that alliance is set.

Here is a good paper on Intelligent Design by William Dembski: www.designinference.com...

As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction—notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Essential to all these methods is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity.

Definately a good read if your interested in IDT and its proponents, and the above paper makes no religous statement...take that as you will. Another good paper on this by Dembski, much longer though. www.designinference.com...

Dawkins may be right that design is absent from the universe. But design theorists insist that science address not only the evidence that reveals the universe to be without design but also the evidence that reveals the universe to be with design. Evidence is a two-edged sword: Claims capable of being refuted by evidence are also capable of being supported by evidence. Even if design ends up being rejected as an unfruitful explanation in science, such a negative outcome for design needs to result from the evidence for and against design being fairly considered. On the other hand, the rejection of design must not result from imposing regulative principles like methodological naturalism that rule out design prior to any consideration of evidence. Whether design is ultimately rejected or accepted must be the conclusion of a scientific argument, not a deduction from an arbitrary regulative principle.

Here's a link to Dr. Dembski's bio: www.discovery.org...

A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books.

IOW Intelligent Design Theory is NOT creationism biblical or otherwise...although any debate your every likely to have around here on IDT will most likely be with a (Christian) creationist. isn't it ironic?

BTW i am a Christian (old-Earth)Creationist and i can't help but see GOD's design all around me and honestly don't know why some do not. To each his own i guess, if you like your trillion to one long-shots every step of the way...so be it, if you willing to accept that nothing i could say will change your mind...i'm not entirely convinced either IDT or Creationism are truely scientific(testable or falsifiable) but that does NOT make it irrational or untrue, no?

Thankyou, that certainly answers the too little education question.

But are those people Christians?

Because if they are then you could argue that the way the interpret results is schewed by their faith.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Thankyou, that certainly answers the too little education question.

But are those people Christians?

Because if they are then you could argue that the way the interpret results is schewed by their faith.

I'm sure i shouldn't be speaking for either of these men, but i do believe they are both Christians. Don't know whether or not they would label themselves Creationists or not tho. I know they do not believe that the Earth/Universe is around 6,000 years old(i.e. young-Earth creationism) and i believe that Behe(in fact many ID theorists) believes man did evolve from a common(primate) ancestor. Most IDT proponents that i'm aware of are either Christian, Muslim or Jew, perhaps in the UFOlogy community their are some who are not, i'm not sure. I've seen plenty around ATS who call themselves IDT proponents and are not religous(i.e. intelligent designer = E.T.).

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Uncle Joe, there are a couple of books, "IN SIX DAYS, WHY 50 SCIENTISTS CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN CREATION" edited by an Australian (sorry can't give you editors or publishers names as my copies haven't 'boomeranged' back to me) that are divided into two parts. One part is essays by those who believed first and the other part by those who came to believe BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK IN SCIENCE. The C.V's of these people are not unimpressive.

Actually, they are pretty unimpressive. Go hunt them up on scholar.google.com (where one of MY papers appears...and I'm hardly impressive in a scholarly sense)

Jeremy Walter - no publications except Creationist ones. Degree in '79
Don Batten - coauthor of book One Blood the Biblical Answer to Racism (sounds creepily like a "kill them all and let the one true blood live" sort of thing.

Veith, however, is the real thing, as are a few others.

Several of them are writing in fields where they don't have any degrees (probably because they couldn't find any scientists who worked in the field and actually believed the creationist myths.

So it's a biased, themed book. You shouldn't believe that 50 scientists walked out one day, found a Bible on the floor, and suddenly underwent a mass conversion. These folks aren't just Christian (you can find numerous scientists who are Christians) -- they are fundamentalists and you'll find that there are almost none of those.

In answer to your original question, Joe, I believe the Raelians would qualify.

There is a the problem I feel. Were we designed or did we evolve from under human species. Was religion brought to us as a form of self-policing principles through such things as the Commandments, and there are a hell of alot more than ten.

Where would we be without the religious laws anyway? Kill when you want - no unseen punishment, Steel when you want - mo unseen punishment. Bear false witness - no unseen punishment.. and so on.
But no reason to feel guilt and in that no reason to not do it again.

No laws = No self control ?

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas
Where would we be without the religious laws anyway?

Secular republics actually acquire knowledge faster than religious republics, which ban certain knowledges.

Kill when you want - no unseen punishment, Steel when you want - mo unseen punishment. Bear false witness - no unseen punishment.. and so on.
But no reason to feel guilt and in that no reason to not do it again.

No laws = No self control ?

Actually, no -- as you can learn from studying various primitive cultures. Even the least advanced (technologically) tribes living under the worst conditions and practicing a form of animism have many of the same laws the rest of us do -- no killing unless there's a war (and many of them have ritualized wars where they just go off and dance at each other... no killing involved), no taking the property of others, regulations on who you can marry, etc, etc.

Ethics and morality don't start with an adherence to a certain deity or religion.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Are there any examples of people who support the idea of I.D over evolution who are not Christian or followers of other major religions?

So far it appears there is not.
In fact, there are not even any who believe every word out of the mouth of God and ID at the same time.

I was just wondering if anyone who didnt beleive in God beleives that we were designed intellegently,

Everyone has a god that they serve. Some serve the creator of the universe, some themselves, etc...

or if this idiocy is a natural product of too much religion and too little education.

It is a natural product of people who want to play both sides of the same coin. They want to say they are christian and want to be part of the evolution group, so they throw out part of the bible and try to jam the rest down your throat.
ID is neither christian nor evolution. My beef with it is that it is a more believable lie in the eyes of christians than evolution is. Its more dangerous. There is a thread in this section that goes into more detail...I dont want to hijack yours

Originally posted by suzy ryan
One part is essays by those who believed first and the other part by those who came to believe BECAUSE OF THEIR WORK IN SCIENCE.

There is no evidence for the creation of the world in six days. These people are beleivers, who have faith in a their religion, they have not 'arrived' at this conclusion based upon a consideration of the evidence.

Argue with the scientists in the books not me. As to not being credible, well their employers seem to think they're credible

Forget about 'credible' or 'incredible' or 'scientist-nonscientist', what is the evidence that they present? If they have no scientific evidence then they can't consider their personal beleifs to be scientific or rational. They are choosing to beleive in YECism. This book seems to try to make the claim that there is evidence, and this this 'second portion' is made up of scientists who came to creationism by studying science, and without the influence of the bible. No bible, no YECism.

Michael Behe is one of the more prominent advocates of Intelligent Design Theory,

He's also a christian, and his ideas are an extension of christian natural theology, there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature, and behe has never been able to scientifically demonstrate that there is. Also, notably, Behe accepts that not only does evolution occur, but that man evolved from apes. Or perhaps its dembski, I often confuse the two to tell the truth.

the above paper makes no religous statement

It also does not demonstrate that intelligent design can be detected.

UJncle Joe
But are those people Christians?

There are, supposedly, jewish creationists who take something like a 6 day aproach, and there are lots of muslim creationists who take a literal, adam and eve, approach. As far as Intelligent Design, there are lots of people that 'promote' it, but I can't think of any non-christians at the moment, tho I seriously doubt that there aren't any. What would be difficult to find is an atheistic advocate of intelligent design. Thats because the intelligent agent in intelligent design is deity. Aliens from another dimension could've made man, but eventually you get to the first living intelligent beings, and they'd have to have arisen by the actions of a supernatural creator-god in intelligent design.