What's next?
Professor Newman says, "Intelligent Design Not Based on Religion."
Posted on 07/04/2009 3:39:53 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Next time someone tells you intelligent design is “based on religion,” you might point him to American Founder Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. As I explain in a special July 4th edition of ID the Future, Jefferson not only believed in intelligent design, he insisted it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion.
Ironically, the critics of intelligent design often think they are defending the principles of Jefferson. The National Council for the Social Studies, for example, claims that intelligent design is religion and then cites Jefferson’s famous Letter to the Danbury Baptists calling for a “wall of separation” between church and state. The clear implication is that Thomas Jefferson would agree with them that intelligent design is religion. A writer for Irregular Times goes even further, insisting that “the case of Thomas Jefferson makes it quite clear that there was not a consensus of support among the authors of the Constitution to allow for the mixing of religion and government to support theological doctrines such as intelligent design.” In reality, Jefferson did not believe that intelligent design was a religious doctrine. In a letter to John Adams on April 11, 1823, he declared:
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
ping!
This is “a keeper”. Thanks 3G.
Appeal to authority.
TJ was one heck of a great thinker. But since TToE was penned pretty much 100 years after his life he wasn’t in a position to comment on it any more than he was in a position to comment on 2VL vs. 3VL.
Whether he did or didn’t think of ID as religion (it is) is irrelevant except for those who stoop to “appeal to authority” — and not even an authority on theology.
Happy July 4th.
I hereby give you the gift of my response.
You’re welcome.
Your linkage even provides a LISTEN option:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2008-07-04T19_24_48-07_00.mp3
What's next?
Professor Newman says, "Intelligent Design Not Based on Religion."
The motto for intelligent design should be “Surrender, Lest Ye Succeed”.
The evidence given in this piece is beautiful support for the point that ID is perfectly explained by the anthropic principle. Note that Thomas Jefferson was pointing out that people feel like there's a design, whether there was one or not!
He nicely explained how the human mind works...looking for design where it does not exist...just like the nuts who think that a cloud--or a rock formation on Mars--looking like a human face MUST have been designed that way.
Yep...Evolution just happens.
Yep...Evolution just happens.
Dear SirYou go, Tommy!
-- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `_mon Dieu!_ jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing _his god._ He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
Whilst Thomas Jefferson did believe that the vast majority of thinkers of history believed in a Creator and he would accept that idea as a Deist, it's a mistake to use this letter as support for the claim that he would be in favor of Intelligent Design based on what we know today. The man was very intelligent and would have updated his views based on what has been learned since his life, and would therefore, by the reasoning used in this letter, eschew ID today.
If it didn't, you wouldn't be here to make that observation or argue against it. :-)
I don't think that ID is a religion, any more or less than SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). In each case, it is claimed that we can distinguish between what is natural and what is intelligently designed.
Labeling ID as religion is a transparent attempt to censor ID. That is not a good sign. Why censor? Why not discuss and debate?
The basis for censoring ID is supposed to b "the separation of church and state" which appears in one unofficial letter by Jefferson. Even in that one letter, it only meant that religion would be protected from attack by the state. The founder's, including Jefferson's, never meant to exclude religion from the public sphere.
Long before there was "intelligent design," there was "general revelation:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_revelation
There is certainly some overlap or some relationship between ID and general revelation. For this reason, I don't see why anyone who is religious would object to ID. But even an atheist should be able to entertain the idea of ID, whether it is as SETI, or in some other context.
If Jefferson was a Deist why did he pray to God? Per Deism, God is indifferent to the world, so it would make no sense whatsoever for a Deist to pray.
and nature is the product of creation - God’s creation - a perfect creation
Thanks....I needed a laugh today.
“God’s creation - a perfect creation”
Is creation actually perfect?
Thomas Jefferson ~ Born 1743 Died 1826
Origin of Species published November 1859
The fact that Thomas Jefferson died 33 years prior to the origination of the theory of evolution shows the Discovery Institutes entire argument to be disingenuous
I guess they are still busy researching this challenge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q
God's creation is perfect - mankind, the world provides the imperfection.
Ideas of evolution, even if not so named, existed long before Darwin wrote his views down and long before Jefferson just as did the idea that one could look at the earth and detect a designer in the design, an obviously intelligent designer.
>>Ideas of evolution, even if not so named, existed long before Darwin wrote his views down and long before Jefferson just as did the idea that one could look at the earth and detect a designer in the design, an obviously intelligent designer.<<
Which is a great theological and philosophical idea.
Just not a scientific one.
>>Labeling ID as religion is a transparent attempt to censor ID. That is not a good sign. Why censor? Why not discuss and debate?<<
Because there is no scientific basis for ID of any kind. And Intelligent Designer is pretty much the same as God from an objective perspective.
You can’t apply an ID to a problem nor a Scientific Theory (unless you introduce us to the designer and ask it what rules it follows and how they can be applied in every case).
ID is theology/philosophy/religion — take your pick. It ain’t science in any way, shape or form.
“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. (emphasis added)”
He said the human mind perceives also and that based upon examination of the general and the particular.
But that raises a question that perhaps you can answer:
If you examined some chipped stone how would you determine which ones, if any, were the result of a design, a deliberate human act, and not just happenstance?
“Just not a scientific one.”
Not so. When an archaeologist finds a piece of fire baked clay how does he decide whether it is simply some wet clay that had a fire built over it or that it is a piece of pottery?
The most common way is if it is glazed or not.
A great amount of pottery was not glazed so not having a glaze would not be definitive one way or the other.
However, mankind is part of creation. How can creation be perfect with an imperfect part?
“Because there is no scientific basis for ID of any kind. And Intelligent Designer is pretty much the same as God from an objective perspective.”
I’m walking along the beach and see a pattern in the sand. It’s a stylized heart with an arrow through it, with the words “Bobby loves Sue.” This could be the result of movement of the surf over the beach. But I infer that it is the work of an intelligent designer. Contrary to your assertion, I don’t think the designer is God. Your response, I take it, is that my inference has “no scientific basis (for ID) of any kind.” If you’re right, that is a shortfall of science.
I have no problem with a theory saying that the Universe might be the creation of some higher being; but I have real problems in accepting that some arbitrarily defined God did it.
“Contrary to your assertion, I don’t think the designer is God.”
Two questions:
1. In a more relevant example of ID than that which you presented, who IS the designer?
2. What do you do with the answer to question 1.?
ID clearly evolved from Creationism (a religious idea) as a defense against the it-ain't-science charge. You must have missed the court room transcripts that proved that the word "Creationism" was replaced with "Intelligent Design" by a global search-and-replace in "Pandas and People."
I do not believe you.
How, then, can creation be perfect, given precisely what you’ve said?
A creation that can become imperfect cannot then have been perfect at the start, can it?
I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God. Now one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians; the other five-sixths, then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without knowledge of the existence of God! That gives [a basis for the hypothesis]…that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on, by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance, and mode, or place of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.
On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and cent. metal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere; animals and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutes” particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all of this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.
Thanks for the ping!
It's about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.
Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the New Testament to leave out the miracles:
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Yes Jefferson believed in "nature and nature's God" and Christian morality as he understood it. But if he lived today he would not be considered a Christian by fundamentalists.
>>Not so. When an archaeologist finds a piece of fire baked clay how does he decide whether it is simply some wet clay that had a fire built over it or that it is a piece of pottery?<<
He studies it and applies scientific principles in his analysis. I am not sure how that makes any particular point since people aren’t artifacts.
“1. In a more relevant example of ID than that which you presented, who IS the designer?”
I bet it’s Bobby. Hint: read the post to which you responded.
“2. What do you do with the answer to question 1.?”
I would walk around the markings on the beach so as not to disturb it. But if I had a crush on Sue, I might might erase Bobby’s declaration of love.
“I don’t think the designer is God.”
“I do not believe you.”
If you had read the post, you would know that the designer is Bobby. But you didn’t bother to read my post before calling me a liar. Unfortunately, your attitude is typical of many who share your views.
“I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God.”
I agree.
Some people today say that it is all about faith. But I agree with Pope John Paul II, who said that man ascends to heaven on wings of faith and reason.
Wikipedia (and others) has a write-up on general and special revelation. General revelation is available to all who examines God's world and sees his hand within it. Special revelation includes the Bible and all miracles that have been observed.
I think some religious people simplify it to a matter of faith so as to avoid controversy. However, that is like giving away half of your best arguments. Jefferson also used a subset of the evidence by redacting his Bible to remove miracles.
If I were God, then I could have created a “perfect” creation that included perfect human robots that never did wrong. But that would be pretty pointless. Almost like creating a universe without life, with everything proceeding by my laws of nature, everything determined by chance and necessity.
On my second universe, I would introduce free will. You might consider that imperfect, but it is really a improvement over universe 1.0.
Who is Schickelgruber?
The Bible agrees with idea that God was too stupid design the laws or nature so flawed that life could not form naturally and that he is dishonest. The Bible says that man was created in God's image and likeness. It is very man like to be stupid enough not to get things right the first time. It is very man like be dishonest about our mistakes. It is also very man like to write a Bible, fill it flawed ideas and then say that God wrote it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.