I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

Fr_Chuck

intellegent design would be of course a "GOD" or some power that was behind the sitting in place all things for creation. ** over simple I know,

So in this, you could develop a religion from this, but then a religion by its basic is a form of worship or honor of that god or creator.
So it takes man to move form that beleif to a form of religion.

jillianleab

It depends on how you view ID.

Some people think the universe and it's laws were set up by a designer and left alone. Humans are just a happy result.

Some think the universe was set up by a designer, and that designer intended for us (humans) to be the end result, so the designer guided the whole process from the start, or at lease set things up so it would happen this way.

Some people think the designer is the Christian god; this is why ID is often called "disguised creationism". These people think the universe was created by the Christian god and the time that follows falls in line with the wording of the bible.

So to me, the first two versions don't indicate a specific religion; one could believe in those forms of ID and not be religious. Neither of them requires worship, a doctrine or a belief in the afterlife. But the third form (obviously) means one must believe in the Christian god, which means ID is a part of that religion.

NeedKarma

Yes, it is religion.

Izannah

I like that answer...

I think ID started out as the latter version, based on a Christian god...kind of like a cushion to ease the friction between the Evolutionist and the Creationist. But, like all theories, offshoots develop and someone finally said, "well, why does it have to be God that is the designer?"

jillianleab

I think you're right, Iza. The history of ID indicates it was developed to appear less Christian-based and "more scientific" in order to get it into the schools. All this means is that instead of "god" they say "designer", but it's still Genesis in disguise. There's a really funny episode from The Simpsons about it, actually:

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current...on-207541.html

Kinda long, but worth it if you have a sense of humor.

tomder55

No it is not a religion .It is a counterpoint to the teaching of Darwinism and evolution. It basically finds scientific evidence to refute evolution. it says that creation and life and the universe are too complex to have been a series of random events . I happen to agree .

With the amazing discoveries in molecular biology it is clear that even a single cell is a complex structure ,almost a universe in itself. It is difficult to believe that life then began with light shining on a primordial puddle .

The problem with ID is that it also is not science because there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that since there are flaws in evolutionary theory therefore the only possible explanation is intelligent design.

So how should it be addressed in education ? In my view teachers should acknowledge what ID correctly points out are flaws in the theories being taught . But they should not be teaching ID as an alternative.

jillianleab

Tom, I'm hoping you might expand on this, because I'm a little unclear as to what you mean...

Are you saying when evolution and the big bang theory are being taught teachers should also teach there are "missing parts", such as the gaps in the fossil record, but not mention ID? Or that teachers should say, "Here are the flaws in this theory, which are answered in ID"?

I just want to understand your opinion.

Galveston1

To plug back into my own question: Intelligent design can mean many different things to different people. It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists. No one else's ox would be gored. And, of course, those who believe in creation are presently seeing their ox being gored. Either way, someone will not like it, so does majority rule or minority rule in this case?

NeedKarma

I don't think anyone has an issue with ID being taught as a religious elective. The issue lies in it being taught as science. Evolution does not care about the what created the first bit of life, it defines what happened afterward. Otherwise we would have to teach all other origin ideas such the Great Teapot in the sky, the Flying Spagetti Monster (blessed by his noodle), the Pink Unicorn, etc.