Is ID incompatible with the Evangelical Christian God?

[k-nug]

It's a question that has been on my mind a bit lately. I have been listening to several different authors in various audio books (I drive a cab) discussing ID vs evolution, etc, and I am wondering, is Intelligent Design incompatible with the Christian God? Specifically, the God of the inerrant Bible (Biker's God.) Some of these questions are out of ignorance, some out of curiosity. The main debate question is, Is ID incompatible with the Evangelical Christian God?

I don't know all the specifics of ID, however I am going to assume that the I in ID created the universe within the laws of said universe, and therefore would he not be bound by those laws? This means all the miracles in the bible would not be possible would it? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread would involve breaking the laws of matter wouldn't it?

How does ID reconcile the speed of light traveling from distant stars and galaxies with the 6,000 year old universe?

If ID buys into the evolutionary theory, how does it reconcile the Genesis creation story and dinosaurs, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnons, etc?

The Biblical God has seen fit to continually meddle in man's affairs, at least until the bible was written. Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc,. How is ID compatible with this version of history?

[Undertow]

(1) Perhaps to some people it does. I don't mind. It's just that it's not a scientific position when proponents insist it is.

(1) I see your point in this statement, though I think there is a certain science behind ID. I think the main problem is that pseudoscience gets mixed in with it.

For example, from the Teleological argument wiki:

Although there are variations, (2) the basic argument can be stated as follows:

1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Now this isn't anything new, but just stating something like this without science to back it up is a bit sketchy.

For example, let's use the example of a human eyeball. Sure, it's complex. Honestly, though scientists have done a hell of a job explaining how they think it evolved over time (that is a praise for scientists) -- to disprove this theory and propel ID as a solution for this would take some serious science as well. An accelerated evolutionary model with a baseline less-complex eye (say, of a fish) could prove that there is no evolutionary way possible for something as complex as a human eye to evolve from a fish eye. However, this has never been done (in fact it might be an impossible task itself) at a reasonable level. A computer model is only capable of so much, and uses certain assumptions made by humans to draw its conclusion. That's why one model can say it's impossible, then the next can say it is possible - usually the people involved have a preconceived conclusion and their assumptions "prove" this.

I suppose what I'm saying is that science is too primitive (and underfunded for ID research as this) to really draw good conclusions on.

(reading back on what I wrote, it wasn't very well explained)

(3) I think that ID is a good idea. I don't see it as hard evidence, but at least it's an interesting proposition.

(2) The phenomenon of evolution and common ancestry are strong ideas. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. I'm open to any other naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of the first cell better than abiogenesis can. I'm also open to any naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of species better than evolution can. To do so, however, requires something vastly more substantial and verifiable than the ID idea. When determining which theory is the best explanation of all avaliable data, firstly there must be explanations for all avaliable data and secondly there must be tests on said data. It seems ID does neither.

(4) You say they are strong ideas, yet you limit yourself only to naturalistic ideas. I suppose ID is just an idea for people that have limited themselves to supernaturalistic ideas.

(5) Can you call yourself a true open-minded thinker when you've outright rejected the principle of the supernatural? At least an admission that it *could* exist would be enough for me.

(3) Ok, thanks for the clarity here. It seems ID is an idea or proposition rather than anything remotely theoretical.

From what wikipedia states and what you have given me, it seems the general view of ID (that life is better explained by a designer than a natural process) would not be in conflict with an evangelical, christian god.

I agree that it is not.

(1) ID is inherently unscientific. First and foremost because science has limits in a naturalistic methodology. You can't observe, test, or honestly know with any degree of certainty anything about the supernatural world, therefore any explanatory power given to it is an unfalsifiable assumption and thus a cop-out. If we are to be intellectually honest and objective, we must recognise our senses limitations in nature.

The lack of offer of any test from the ID idea is another big blow. What was the method of creation? How was it done? How did we arrive at all of the complexity which was supposedly at the hand of a creator? You see these questions are untestable if we assume a supernatural agent is to thank for it and thus the idea is not only unverifiable, but basically of no use too.

Now the idea given by ID of irreducable complexity is testable, and if you do a little research I'm sure you'll find it has been disproven for any number of examples proposed by Michael Behe. This, however, is not an attmept to support ID. Rather, it is a challenge to evolution; one which has been largely overcome, if my understanding is correct.

(2) I've highlighted a bold point in the ID argument which is a clear fallacy. They state as reason for thier acceptance of the ID idea that an unguided/random/etc natural process could not have been the cause of all of this complexity. Natural selection, the mechanism which drives evolution, is by it's very nature guided.

(3) To be brash, that's all it is and it's down to opinion. Evolution gives you a reason why life seems designed and complex; natural selection is a force which drives populations into biological niches based on those traits they possess which aid in survival. It just so happens that the more complex and stremlined an organism is, the greater chance it has of surviving, therefore those organisms proliferate and those not as complex or streamlined do not.

(4) I'm limiting myself to science here and science is limited to nature, yes.

(5) I have personally not rejected the idea. An objective methodology called science has. I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of broad supernatural entities or ideas. I confess I don't know that the supernatural does or does not exist, therefore I confess to the possibility (whatever degree that possibility is) that the supernatural may exist. In my arguments on these forums, I'll probably argue a scientific position whenever there are matters of a scientific nature. That dosen't mean, however, that science is the only way I think. I'm by no means a hot shot in philosophy but I can see some decent arguments for and against a supernature.

At the end of the day, it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that ID is a theological or philosophical argument rather than a scientific one.

[disbelief]

Or are they saying that there was a special creation of all species?

My understanding is that this is the correct answer. We in Kentucky unfortunately now have the creation museum where they are trying to say that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and other foolish ideas. ID is christian radicalism hidden behind a nice sounding name. They want to teach this in schools so they can slip in their ideas of god to the kids. One of the founders of the idea of ID was a fundamentalist christian and I can not think of his name right now but there is a ton of information on this subject on the web. The Infidel Guy deals with this and several other web sites.
My daughter whose grandmother takes her to church ( although this really gets under my skin) asked me the other day about dinosaurs being on noah's ark. Had to break it to her that this is a crazy idea that there is no proof that man co- existed with dinosaurs or even that it would have been possible.

ID to me is a way for the religious people to come to terms with the fossil record, radio carbon dating, and other science that is more and more showing them that their divinely inspired book is wrong on all matters of science. And as we know if we can prove it wrong on science then the whole system just fades away into the past, where it belongs to my estimation.

[Chimp]

ID was created to be compatible with a supernatural causation.

The issue with ID, relative to science, is that ID is not science. It is not science
because it makes a claim about irreducible complexity. The idea is that things
can be broken down only so far. Once you get to the irreducible level the only
explanation left is...God did it. The problem with that theory is...there is no
irreducibly complex level and the appeal to the divine, of course.

This makes ID not testable ergo not falsifiable.

EDIT Undertow basically beat me to it...it's early and my coffee hasn't fully
kicked in

[Undertow]

Or are they saying that there was a special creation of all species?

My understanding is that this is the correct answer. We in Kentucky unfortunately now have the creation museum where they are trying to say that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and other foolish ideas. ID is christian radicalism hidden behind a nice sounding name. They want to teach this in schools so they can slip in their ideas of god to the kids. One of the founders of the idea of ID was a fundamentalist christian and I can not think of his name right now but there is a ton of information on this subject on the web. The Infidel Guy deals with this and several other web sites.
My daughter whose grandmother takes her to church ( although this really gets under my skin) asked me the other day about dinosaurs being on noah's ark. Had to break it to her that this is a crazy idea that there is no proof that man co- existed with dinosaurs or even that it would have been possible.

ID to me is a way for the religious people to come to terms with the fossil record, radio carbon dating, and other science that is more and more showing them that their divinely inspired book is wrong on all matters of science. And as we know if we can prove it wrong on science then the whole system just fades away into the past, where it belongs to my estimation.

I can agree with that because of the wedge strategy. This stuff is disturbing.

[k-nug]

You guys have good points, let me take some time and try to clarify. I admit the OP isn't very concise.

I apologize for confusing biblical literalism for ID. Admittedly I'm somewhat ignorant of the latter. I just got off of work, I will take a couple hours and rethink my position.

[seventil]

(1) ID is inherently unscientific. First and foremost because science has limits in a naturalistic methodology. You can't observe, test, or honestly know with any degree of certainty anything about the supernatural world, therefore any explanatory power given to it is an unfalsifiable assumption and thus a cop-out. If we are to be intellectually honest and objective, we must recognise our senses limitations in nature.

I concede this point a bit, but my purpose of my above rambling was to say that ID *could* be scientific. It's not so much of looking at a supernatural world, as it's only the Designer in question that has to be supernatural. Our limitations in nature are definitely apparent, but I think that's why we need to be extra careful to not "rule-out" the possibility of a Designer from a scientific standpoint.

The lack of offer of any test from the ID idea is another big blow. What was the method of creation? How was it done? How did we arrive at all of the complexity which was supposedly at the hand of a creator? You see these questions are untestable if we assume a supernatural agent is to thank for it and thus the idea is not only unverifiable, but basically of no use too.

The method of creation isn't really a viable argument here. The debate isn't *how* it's done, it's more of a *was it done at all?* argument. The method of ID is another topic.

One thing; you keep saying that these questions are "untestable". Why is that? Why would the notion of a Designer be rejected scientifically? Is it because it doesn't fit in with an atheistical ideology that goes along with evolutionists, or is it because it's really absolutely impossible?

My point in this statement is that there are many things that *could* have happened: evolution by random chance or by ID are equally valid scientific theories, in my mind, because neither have absolute proof of being true. Surely, you must concede that life origins theory and abiogenesis are theories yet not really in the same league of evolution.

Now the idea given by ID of irreducable complexity is testable, and if you do a little research I'm sure you'll find it has been disproven for any number of examples proposed by Michael Behe. This, however, is not an attmept to support ID. Rather, it is a challenge to evolution; one which has been largely overcome, if my understanding is correct.

My point wasn't to prove ID through irreducible complexity, but to simply state that the idea, given scientific advances, could be tested more thoroughly. I agree that the current IC theory has been largely disputed by the scientific community.

(2) I've highlighted a bold point in the ID argument which is a clear fallacy. They state as reason for thier acceptance of the ID idea that an unguided/random/etc natural process could not have been the cause of all of this complexity. Natural selection, the mechanism which drives evolution, is by it's very nature guided.

I've still yet to hear an explanation of why chance should be given more weight than design. Can they not coexist as two separate ideas until one is proven without a doubt?

I think there is an underlying problem with atheistical mindsets that do something like:

1) There is no proof of a Designer; therefore
2) Designer can not exist

when it should be

1) There is no proof of a Designer; therefore
2) Designer can exist if there was proof

(3) To be brash, that's all it is and it's down to opinion. Evolution gives you a reason why life seems designed and complex; natural selection is a force which drives populations into biological niches based on those traits they possess which aid in survival. It just so happens that the more complex and stremlined an organism is, the greater chance it has of surviving, therefore those organisms proliferate and those not as complex or streamlined do not.

Is natural selection unavailable to be used by a Designer? It's not a limitation I put on him.

I assume this is in reference to the complexity issue I brought up earlier. I think we need to get more into the specifics of ID theory in context with things like natural selection.

(4) I'm limiting myself to science here and science is limited to nature, yes.

Fair enough. Would you make the statement then that it is scientifically impossible for a Designer to have been involved with anything in the history of our known universe?

(5) I have personally not rejected the idea. An objective methodology called science has. I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of broad supernatural entities or ideas. I confess I don't know that the supernatural does or does not exist, therefore I confess to the possibility (whatever degree that possibility is) that the supernatural may exist. In my arguments on these forums, I'll probably argue a scientific position whenever there are matters of a scientific nature. That dosen't mean, however, that science is the only way I think. I'm by no means a hot shot in philosophy but I can see some decent arguments for and against a supernature.

That's good to hear. I find that most atheists, when questioned properly, realize that they are agnostic, not atheists.

As for arguments for and against the supernatural, I'd be happy to discuss those as well.

At the end of the day, it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that ID is a theological or philosophical argument rather than a scientific one.

I agree that ID, at it's core, can have a lot of philosophical ideas.

However, moving forward in the discussion, I contend that we talk about:

Specified complexity
(particularly, DNA)

or

Fine-tuned universe

Myself, I like the idea of Specified complexity the best. I dislike the Fine-tuned universe idea for the same reason many scientists do.

[seventil]

My understanding is that this is the correct answer. We in Kentucky unfortunately now have the creation museum where they are trying to say that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark and other foolish ideas. ID is christian radicalism hidden behind a nice sounding name. They want to teach this in schools so they can slip in their ideas of god to the kids. One of the founders of the idea of ID was a fundamentalist christian and I can not think of his name right now but there is a ton of information on this subject on the web. The Infidel Guy deals with this and several other web sites.
My daughter whose grandmother takes her to church ( although this really gets under my skin) asked me the other day about dinosaurs being on noah's ark. Had to break it to her that this is a crazy idea that there is no proof that man co- existed with dinosaurs or even that it would have been possible.

ID to me is a way for the religious people to come to terms with the fossil record, radio carbon dating, and other science that is more and more showing them that their divinely inspired book is wrong on all matters of science. And as we know if we can prove it wrong on science then the whole system just fades away into the past, where it belongs to my estimation.

I think you are confusing Intelligent Design with young-earth Creationism and Biblical literalism.

If anything, I would argue that ID is a proponent for theistic evolution or some other Old Earth Creation theory.

Anyone that argues ID and brings up anything about the Genesis account isn't arguing ID anymore, they are arguing Christian Genesis Creation account. ID officially doesn't claim who the designer is; it could be Thor or Romulus for all it cares.

[Undertow]

(1) ID is inherently unscientific. First and foremost because science has limits in a naturalistic methodology. You can't observe, test, or honestly know with any degree of certainty anything about the supernatural world, therefore any explanatory power given to it is an unfalsifiable assumption and thus a cop-out. If we are to be intellectually honest and objective, we must recognise our senses limitations in nature.

I concede this point a bit, but my purpose of my above rambling was to say that ID *could* be scientific. It's not so much of looking at a supernatural world, as it's only the Designer in question that has to be supernatural. Our limitations in nature are definitely apparent, but I think that's why we need to be extra careful to not "rule-out" the possibility of a Designer from a scientific standpoint.

The lack of offer of any test from the ID idea is another big blow. What was the method of creation? How was it done? How did we arrive at all of the complexity which was supposedly at the hand of a creator? You see these questions are untestable if we assume a supernatural agent is to thank for it and thus the idea is not only unverifiable, but basically of no use too.

The method of creation isn't really a viable argument here. The debate isn't *how* it's done, it's more of a *was it done at all?* argument. The method of ID is another topic.

One thing; you keep saying that these questions are "untestable". Why is that? Why would the notion of a Designer be rejected scientifically? Is it because it doesn't fit in with an atheistical ideology that goes along with evolutionists, or is it because it's really absolutely impossible?

My point in this statement is that there are many things that *could* have happened: evolution by random chance or by ID are equally valid scientific theories, in my mind, because neither have absolute proof of being true. Surely, you must concede that life origins theory and abiogenesis are theories yet not really in the same league of evolution.

Now the idea given by ID of irreducable complexity is testable, and if you do a little research I'm sure you'll find it has been disproven for any number of examples proposed by Michael Behe. This, however, is not an attmept to support ID. Rather, it is a challenge to evolution; one which has been largely overcome, if my understanding is correct.

My point wasn't to prove ID through irreducible complexity, but to simply state that the idea, given scientific advances, could be tested more thoroughly. I agree that the current IC theory has been largely disputed by the scientific community.

(2) I've highlighted a bold point in the ID argument which is a clear fallacy. They state as reason for thier acceptance of the ID idea that an unguided/random/etc natural process could not have been the cause of all of this complexity. Natural selection, the mechanism which drives evolution, is by it's very nature guided.

I've still yet to hear an explanation of why chance should be given more weight than design. Can they not coexist as two separate ideas until one is proven without a doubt?

I think there is an underlying problem with atheistical mindsets that do something like:

1) There is no proof of a Designer; therefore
2) Designer can not exist

when it should be

1) There is no proof of a Designer; therefore
2) Designer can exist if there was proof

(3) To be brash, that's all it is and it's down to opinion. Evolution gives you a reason why life seems designed and complex; natural selection is a force which drives populations into biological niches based on those traits they possess which aid in survival. It just so happens that the more complex and stremlined an organism is, the greater chance it has of surviving, therefore those organisms proliferate and those not as complex or streamlined do not.

Is natural selection unavailable to be used by a Designer? It's not a limitation I put on him.

I assume this is in reference to the complexity issue I brought up earlier. I think we need to get more into the specifics of ID theory in context with things like natural selection.

(4) I'm limiting myself to science here and science is limited to nature, yes.

Fair enough. Would you make the statement then that it is scientifically impossible for a Designer to have been involved with anything in the history of our known universe?

(5) I have personally not rejected the idea. An objective methodology called science has. I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of broad supernatural entities or ideas. I confess I don't know that the supernatural does or does not exist, therefore I confess to the possibility (whatever degree that possibility is) that the supernatural may exist. In my arguments on these forums, I'll probably argue a scientific position whenever there are matters of a scientific nature. That dosen't mean, however, that science is the only way I think. I'm by no means a hot shot in philosophy but I can see some decent arguments for and against a supernature.

That's good to hear. I find that most atheists, when questioned properly, realize that they are agnostic, not atheists.

As for arguments for and against the supernatural, I'd be happy to discuss those as well.

At the end of the day, it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that ID is a theological or philosophical argument rather than a scientific one.

I agree that ID, at it's core, can have a lot of philosophical ideas.

However, moving forward in the discussion, I contend that we talk about:

Specified complexity
(particularly, DNA)

or

Fine-tuned universe

Myself, I like the idea of Specified complexity the best. I dislike the Fine-tuned universe idea for the same reason many scientists do.

I might adress your points later but to be honest whenever someone lines up a scientific position with an atheistic one I tend to lose interest. Twobitsmedia has really tired me out in that respect. For the record I am an atheist as well as an agnostic. I am an atheist in the sense that I am skeptical of theistic or supernatural claims because of the lack of empirical evidence, not that I have an active belief that the supernatural can not exist.

If you're willing to avoid alligning atheistic worldviews with the scientific position I have been arguing with, I'll be willing to chat but utill then, as I've said, the rhetoric is beginning to tire me.

[seventil]

If you're willing to avoid alligning atheistic worldviews with the scientific position I have been arguing with, I'll be willing to chat but utill then, as I've said, the rhetoric is beginning to tire me.

I'd be willing to do that. I just wanted to see where you stood on that issue.

I feel for you on the rhetoric, I can only take small doses of this myself. Life is too short, I suppose.

[QED]

However, moving forward in the discussion, I contend that we talk about:

Specified complexity
(particularly, DNA)

or

Fine-tuned universe

Myself, I like the idea of Specified complexity the best. I dislike the Fine-tuned universe idea for the same reason many scientists do.

Good points, but perhaps a little off-topic. We can debate the apparently finely-tuned universe in my topic Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?. As for specified complexity, I can't think of a topic other than the Spot the design, for fun and profit. This topic challenges us to identify which products were designed by intelligence and which were designed by an algorithm modelled on natural selection. This presents us with a working demonstration of a principle that can generate the appearance of design through an autonomous process. Nobody that I'm aware of has put forward a counter-principle that explains why this should suffer from any intrinsic limitation on the quality or complexity of the design products. By discussing principles and referring to practical applications I think we stand a better chance of sorting out the disagreements than by pitting one philosophy against another.