1

Is it possible to define the source of intelligent causes, which provides the foundation for the Intelligent Design theory, from a purely scientific perspective? Is yes, How? If not, why not?

Joseph Weissman
  • 9,590
  • 8
  • 47
  • 86
Dale
  • 159
  • 5
  • 1
    Can you please clarify what exactly you mean by the terms, intelligence and by intelligent design? The answer to your question will surely reside in the compatibility of the definitions your provide for these concepts. – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 20:39
  • 1
    by intelligent design I mean what wikipedia defines it as, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I probably should have said "intelligent causes" in place of "intelligence." Ill change that is 2 seconds. – Dale Jun 26 '11 at 20:53
  • 1
    Evolution is an established scientific theory, so intelligent design would need to compete on these grounds, not with philosophical definitions alone. – Tobu Jun 26 '11 at 21:30
  • @Tobu Micro-Evolution is an established scientific fact. Maro-Evolution is merely a theory, which some consider to be philosophical or even religious (supporting of atheism or agnosticism). – Dale Jun 26 '11 at 21:45
  • 3
    Like a fish needs a bicycle. (No, not really.) – vanden Jun 26 '11 at 22:32
  • 2
    what if the universe was an intelligently designed simulation that internally used natural selection? – James Tauber Jun 27 '11 at 18:06
  • @James: This is my current guess. (Although remember that natural selection arises as soon as you have scarcity and inheritance, so I don't even thing that part was intentional in the design). – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 05:14
  • 3
    @Joe: You've fallen into the classic trap, thinking that a "theory" means the same thing in science as it does in colloquial speech. In fact, in the scientific community, a theory is something that is almost universally accepted and as close to "universal truth" as we're going to get. Remember that gravity is "merely" a theory. There's no truth to the claim that micro-evolution is an "established scientific fact" while macro-evolution is "merely a theory". – Cody Gray - on strike Jul 01 '11 at 08:56
  • 1
    @Cody Gray There is no indisputable evidence of macro-evolution (there is evidence but it does not rule out other possibilities). There is conclusive evidence of micro-evolution. – Dale Jul 05 '11 at 18:06
  • 2
    The standard of "disputability" is quite a slippery one. I've heard plenty of people dispute "microevolution", though I agree the evidence seems indisputable to me. Contrary to the oft-touted belief among objectors, the evolution of various life forms beyond the species level (which is what I think we're calling "macro-evolution") has indeed been observed in the laboratory and in nature. That obviously doesn't mean that one is unable to dispute the interpretation of that evidence, but my point is that micro/macro evolution are not generally perceived as separate by the scientific community. – Cody Gray - on strike Jul 06 '11 at 00:08
  • Surely the definitions have created a logical fallacy. Macro-evolution is defined to mean when one group of animals can't reproduce with another group of animals, which come from the same ancestors. Therefore when one fish is no-longer able to reproduce with another fish (which came from the same great-great-great-great grandparents) this is taken as proof of "Macro-evolution" and it is because of the definition. However just because one fish can't reproduce with another fish (from the same ancestors) doesn't mean that a fish can evolve into a dinosaur. – Dale Jul 06 '11 at 18:22
  • 2
    Most of your comments about evolution seem off-topic here. Theories stand or fall on their own. Please define Intelligent Design theory. The definition must include a model and make predictions. If not, you don't have a theory. – user179700 Aug 03 '11 at 10:49
  • @user179700 The theory of Intelligent Design began with the book "Darwin's Black Box." The prediction is that certain biological life forms cannot have originated through natural selection, since many necessary intermediary stages would be disadvantageous (irreducible complexity). Therefore some intelligence must have been involved and guided the development of life. – Dale Aug 23 '11 at 20:43
  • 1
    @JoeHobbit That isn't a prediction so much as a conclusion. No biological system has been shown to be irreducibly complex and the examples in "Darwin's Black Box" have been shown to be erroneous. A prediction would be something along the lines of, the ToE predicts a mechanism of inheritance which was met by the discovery of DNA. – user179700 Aug 23 '11 at 20:58
  • @JoeHobbit If you’re going to use theory it needs to be used correctly. For this purpose, theory = model. ID needs to have an objective model. All I’ve ever seen from the ID camp are unsupported position. We think, it may be, etcetera is not a model. Until ID can come up with a way for us to tell ID from non-ID it is a non-starter and irreducible complexity so far hasn’t done so. – user179700 Aug 23 '11 at 21:03
  • Removed 'philosophy-of-science' because it seems like you are perhaps asking more about religion than science here. Any additional context you could provide would be helpful here as well. – Joseph Weissman Sep 05 '11 at 17:54

6 Answers6

7

I think it will be easier to determine the answer to your question, if we make the question a bit clearer. It seems that your question can be more simply reformulated as:

You have defined intelligent design as a property of a universe in a state that was caused by a directed process. You used the term "intelligent cause", which is a bit redundant, but the contrast to "an undirected process, such as natural selection" elucidates the definition. So, we can again reformulate the question as:

  • Is belief in religious dogma a necessary consequence of belief that the state of the universe was caused by a directed process?

I think we can summarize the belief in religiously-dogmatic cosmology, as a "belief that the state of the universe was caused by God". So, our next reformulation is:

  • Is a belief that the state of the universe was caused by God a necessary consequence of a belief that the state of the universe was caused by a directed process?

If God is the only possible directed process, then the answer to the question is Yes. If God is not the only possible directed process, then the directed process that caused the state of the universe could be God or it could be the other thing(s), so the answer to the question is No. So, you're question can be further reduced to:

  • Is God the only possible directed process that could cause the state of the universe?

I can conceive of directed processes that could cause the state of the universe, that are as plausible as a dogmatic, religious God, so I tend to think the answer to your question is that Intelligent design does not require religion.

Consider a computer chess game. It executes particular processes (moves) in a directed manner (directed towards winning the chess game). I don't think that the computer game is a God, (nor the computer programmer), but it is certainly creating a directed process. This occurs in the physical world, due to a specific configuration of matter that forces electric signals to execute within the parameters of a defined algorithm.

Given that if there is something, it must be somewhere, it is certainly conceivable that when whatever was here before what is here now was here, it was aligned in such a way that some impulse could cause it to emit a "directed process". This is analogous to a mouse click in the universe of the computer running the chess program. This vague example at least gives an example of what a "non-religious" explanation for intelligent design would look like.

One potential counterargument that I anticipate, would be the contention, that any such impulse or configuration of matter is itself God. But, in order for that argument to hold, the objector would have to start a religion that defines God as such and cultivate a following that accepts it as religious dogma.

So,

No

Intelligent design does not need religion.

smartcaveman
  • 1,467
  • 12
  • 20
  • 2
    There's a lot that I like about this answer. However, were I inclined to think that there was "a directed process" that "caused the state of the universe" I'd call that---whatever it might be---'God.' – vanden Jun 26 '11 at 22:26
  • 1
    @vanden, my last paragraph specifically addressed that contention. There is nothing wrong with calling that "directed process" God (I might do the same). However, we can probably both agree that 'a directed process that caused the state of the universe' is not a definition of 'God', that would be accepted by proponents of any of the religions to which @Joe was referring in his question. – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 22:31
  • 1
    Lets see if I got this: Intelligent design doesn't need religion as long as the intelligence is not defined as part of a pre-existing religion, but defining that intelligence (and having people believe it) would form a new religion? – Dale Jun 26 '11 at 22:33
  • @smartcaveman: I ought to have been more explicit; apologies. I don't think the rejoinder is especially helpful. Deistic views are clearly views in which there is a God. I don't see why, were I an ID Deist, I'd have to found a movement to count as having my ID intertwined with religion. – vanden Jun 26 '11 at 22:37
  • @Joe, Close. Defining that intelligence as God (and having people believe it) would form a new religion. All that defining that intelligence does, in-itself, is create a possible alternative explanation for intelligent design. – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 23:05
  • @vanden, (1) I am not sure what exactly you mean by "ID Deism". (2) If anything that anyone thinks can be considered "religion" then the word "religion" loses any meaning it has as distinct from the word "belief". I have to assume that belief in general is not what @Joe meant by "religion", so I took the word "religion" as a reference to those dogmatic systems which people tend to think of as religions. Some examples would be Islam, Christianity, Wicca, etc. Generally, this set would not include a single individual's belief... – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 23:11
  • @smartcaveman: I meant Intelligent Design Deism. I never suggested that anything one thinks can be taken to be religion (quite the strawman, really). Rather, I suggested that if one has the view that an intelligent agent structured the universe, that is a religious belief. There's no minimal threshold head-count of fellow believers that would magically transform the belief of a solitary individual into a religious belief. (Organized or community religion is different, certainly.) The nature and character of the belief is not altered just because some others have been seduced. – vanden Jun 27 '11 at 03:36
  • @vanden, I understand the point you are making. However, I don't think it has any impact on my argument. I agree that you can derive a religion from your cosmology. However, that doesn't mean that you must derive a religion from cosmology. It is certainly possible to conceive of a cosmology involving a catalyst for a directed process, completely independently of religion. Basing a religion on a particular conception after the conception's inception (that is not itself religiously inspired), does not entail that the conception is dependent upon religion, but the opposite. – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 06:11
  • "Is belief in religious dogma a necessary consequence of belief in intelligent design?" - ''No''. Is belief in religious dogma a necessary prerequisite of belief in intelligent design? - Yes! So wrong question, you missed the mark. – Lennart Regebro Jun 27 '11 at 11:00
  • @Lennart Regebro, The two questions you posed in your comment are logically equivalent, so the answers cannot possibly be different without committing an error in your logic. (Let me know if you need further explanation). – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 13:53
  • Can whoever down-voted this post please provide an explanation? – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 13:53
  • @smartcaveman: No, they are not. Consequence and prerequisite are not logically equivalent. – Lennart Regebro Jun 28 '11 at 03:58
  • Surely the association of religion and intelligent design is strong enough to say that one will lead to the other - regardless of which comes first. – Dale Jun 28 '11 at 05:03
  • @Lennart Regebro, how much money would you be willing to bet on that? I can provide a very simple proof in symbolic logic – smartcaveman Jun 28 '11 at 14:31
  • @smartcaveman: If you think this is a place for bets and making money, you are wrong. Your comments are typically unconstructive and now lately rude. I suggest you change your attitude. I look forward to see how you logically prove that before is the same as after, and then go on to prove that black is white and get killed at the next Zebra crossing. (if you get that reference). – Lennart Regebro Jun 28 '11 at 16:53
  • @lennartregebro, Can we at least agree on the validity of basic sentential calculus rules, as a starting point? – smartcaveman Jun 28 '11 at 17:31
  • @smartcaveman: You are still not being constructive, you have just adopted a superior attitude as a defense mechanism. As mentioned before, I think you should drop the attitude. – Lennart Regebro Jun 28 '11 at 18:40
  • Yet, ID is a religious movement, created and designed by the religous and rule by the courts to be creationism in sheep's clothing. – user179700 Aug 23 '11 at 21:06
  • No need to shout, smartcaveman. – James Grossmann Apr 15 '12 at 04:15
  • @user179700 You are right about the historical origins and political purpose of ID. However, we are not talking about this. We are merely talking about a proposition, namely that the universe's development is best explained as the result of the deliberate acts of a being with the necessary power. Smartcaveman is correct in saying that the belief in this proposition does not entail belief the doctrines of any particular religion. – James Grossmann Apr 15 '12 at 04:21
5

Consider this: evolutionary algorithms are a field of artificial intelligence. Thus, it is not unreasonable to argue that the "original evolutionary algorithm" (assuming that we're not in a simulation) is also an intelligent cause. The question then becomes, given that our presence is the result of "intelligent" causes, are those causes conscious? I would posit that question is a much harder one to answer.

Any theory that tries to address the source of the intelligent cause must be falsifiable, à la Karl Popper. I would say that, yes, it is possible to create such a theory, but that so far all attempts to do so have failed, either because they were not falsifiable, or because they were, and were shown to be wrong (consider the most recent apocalypse predictions, which were falsifiable).

Edit to add some shameless self-promotion for my Genetic Algorithm and Neural Network repositories. This code is still "research grade" meaning it'll require a few tweaks to run on your system, but anyone with a half-decent knowledge of Java and C++ should have no problems with those tweaks.

Ben Hocking
  • 1,062
  • 1
  • 9
  • 14
  • The idea of evolutionary algorithms directly attacks a central tenant of intelligent design: irreducible complexity. A logarithm could theoretically overcome an obstacle such as five (otherwise harmful) genes working together to produce an advantageous trait. However, there is no scientific evidence of an algorithm. In fact, the theory of natural selection says that there isn't an algorithm (beyond survival of the fittest). Evolution in its accepted form contains no logarithm that can overcome the issue of irreducible complexity. – Dale Jun 30 '11 at 07:46
  • 1
    @JoeHobbit: I work extensively with evolutionary algorithms, and I've seen several examples of five (otherwise harmful) pseudo-genes working together to produce an advantageous trait. I'm lucky because I'm able to work on clusters of high-performance computers allowing me to run tens of thousands of simulations a day. It's much easier to imagine even wilder cases in a universe running billions of billions of such simulations every day. (P.S. you're using logarithm in some places where you mean algorithm. Very different things.) – Ben Hocking Jun 30 '11 at 10:27
  • Could you supply more information about the pseudo-genes working together to produce an advantageous trait please? (Was an algorithm used, what feature was produced, did this arise naturally or in response to scientific prodding, etc.) – Dale Jun 30 '11 at 16:57
  • The details are in the open source code posted above, but a short overview is that there are four parameters governing an Izhikevich neuron and three controlling different types of feedback (resting-shunting, feed-forward, and feed-back), and proper neural network activity requires that these parameters be compatible with each other. The genetic algorithm meanwhile employs a continuous interval mutation with multi-point cross-over in a manner that is completely unrelated to the problem being solved (i.e., it's not tuned for it). The fitness fn is multi-objective and complicated. – Ben Hocking Jun 30 '11 at 22:10
  • Those seven parameters I mentioned are out of 20 total free parameters, each governed by a pseudo-gene residing on the [0, 1) interval. The complicated fitness function (which is detailed in the code) relies on average activity, the standard deviation of activity and performance on a task. – Ben Hocking Jun 30 '11 at 22:13
  • Now all that is needed is a reproducible scientific experiment that shows these (or similar) algorithms at work in nature. – Dale Jul 05 '11 at 18:11
3

Too long for a comment:

I think at the heart of this question is the common belief that religion and science are diametrically opposed. But I would also say this is a misnomer - the real key is that they do not cover the same material. It is possible for the concept usually described by the vastly unspecific and overgeneralized word "science" to address religious issues - though it's unlikely. In particular, if a god or gods were to appear, demonstrate their powers, and the like, then it is not the case that the scientific community would still refute this.

In some freshman physics class I took in college, I remember there being a student who had a really hard time separating the concept of theory and fact. Really, he had a hard time acknowledging that 'science' was not based on facts, but on approximated theories founded upon approximate observations - they can compete, multiple theories can both be brought forward, etc.

What I'm getting at is that the idea of a 'scientific perspective' seems poorly defined. If you mean from the perspective of coming up with ideas and subjecting them to the test of being compared with observation and logic, then that's one thing. If you mean describe the sort of deity-like perhaps-sentient Designer(s) with a set of rules governing behavior, or to mathematically demonstrate sort of property, or to see what would happen if we shot two of such creators at each other (as I continue to poke at my physics buddies) - that's another thing.

Further, it's not so clear what you mean by intelligent design, or even intelligence? Could you clarify, especially on what sort of characterization of this 'intelligence' that you mean?

davidlowryduda
  • 1,710
  • 2
  • 15
  • 26
  • 1
    @mixedmath, Look at the comments under the question for the OP's definition of intelligence/intelligent design. – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 21:58
  • 1
    @smart: this is one of those cases where it took me far longer to write this than it took to comment on it - but I still have no idea that "intelligence" is intended to describe or what sort of description he is looking for – davidlowryduda Jun 26 '11 at 21:59
  • 1
    @mixedmath, I took "intelligent" to mean "able to emit a directed process". (Check out my post for the explanation). Also, take a look at the wikipedia page for intelligent agent. – smartcaveman Jun 26 '11 at 22:03
  • 1
    @smart: thank you for that distinction, +1 on your answer. – davidlowryduda Jun 26 '11 at 22:08
  • In the case of Intelligent Design, it attempts to cover scientific material. It would therefore according to your definition not only not need religion, but be a scientific standpoint. As such, it is since long proven false, because it invokes an Unknown intelligence and hence fails Ockhams Razor. – Lennart Regebro Jun 27 '11 at 10:58
  • 1
    Science may be based on approximated theories founded upon approximate observations, but it is science that put a man on the moon and that is a FACT. They didn't get their because of diligent praying. – Captain Sensible Jun 27 '11 at 13:30
  • 1
    @Lennart Regebro, I have two points about your Ockham's Razor comment. (1) Ockham's Razor can be summarized as "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". Inventing entities as complex as a God for the sake of explaining a physical phenomenon is certainly in violation of this rule. – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 14:00
  • 1
    @Lennart Regebro, (2) Ockham's Razor is a good guideline for reasoning, but it is by no means a conclusive method of evaluation. Consider the "flat earth" scenario: Why don't people don't fall off the face of the earth? Thousands of years ago people used the principle of Ockham'z razor to determine that it is because the earth is a flat plane and we sitting on top of it. A spherical world bound by gravity is much more complex explanation, but it is still the correct one. – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 14:02
  • @smartcaveman, your argument about the "flat earth" scenario is based on faulty information. The Earth was known to be round by scientists centuries before William of Ockham created his razor. – Ben Hocking Jun 29 '11 at 23:09
  • @benhocking, Ockham's Razor is a name given to a concept. The concept is common sense and was certainly around when people thought the earth was flat. You seem to be asserting that if you act in accordance with Ockham's Razor, but don't cite Ockham, then you are not using the principle of Ockham's Razor. If this is your stance, then please re-read my post, substituting each occurrence of the phrase "Ockham's Razor" as "the antecedent conception to which the symbol 'Ockham's Razor' refers". – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 23:18
  • 1
    @smartcaveman: I wasn't trying to dispute your general point. The whole "flat Earth" myth is just a pet peeve of mine, largely popularized by Washington Irving's fictional biography of Columbus. (If you're not familiar with it, you should Google it or just read the Wikipedia article on Myth of the Flat Earth.) – Ben Hocking Jun 30 '11 at 01:14
  • @smartcaveman: Although you are basically correct (except for your flat earth example) this is not an argument against Ockhams razor, and it is still valid in this case. ID fails the razor when it invokes the Designer. – Lennart Regebro Jun 30 '11 at 06:55
  • @smartcaveman: One more comment on Ockham's razor, separate from the "flat Earth myth": Einstein's phrasing on it is quite apt: you want the simplest explanation that explains the observable facts, but no simpler. That no simpler part (which is also "common sense") is present in the original as well, with the phrase sine necessitate. – Ben Hocking Jun 30 '11 at 11:32
0

No it does not need it.

It is the same idea as what Aristotle called the unmoved mover. Aristotle just like most ID proponents ascribe no cultist aspect to Intelligent Design. Most ID proponents just try to explain the irreducibly complex systems in nature and the apparent design that universe show and posit that the veracity of the claim that it could all arise from nothing than more random chance is unreasonable and that you need a intelligent designer as a cause.

As Occam's Razor suggest the simplest solution is often the best. Biological systems show design then it is probably designed.

Neil Meyer
  • 2,303
  • 19
  • 30
  • Your application of Occam's Razor is wrong. It doesn't mean "least number of words" or most compact, simplest English expression of an idea. It means the least number of faith-based premises, undemonstrated parts and properties, including inferred or hidden premises. It comes from logic where, if each premise has probability 'A', the likelihood the conclusion is true decreases exponentially as you add premises: Probability P(N) = A^N. ID chooses the more complex, less parsimonious model, is anti-science and anti-parsimony because it requires unknown alternatives to things like brains. – user6552 Jan 08 '24 at 21:01
  • Biological systems do not "show design", where design is a verb, the act or action of designing/creating something. You have not observed any designing or designer of life. You infer it using an invalid, circular inference based solely on humans, which have naturally-grown brains that need certain parts (like DNA) in order to grow and operate (by natural, chemical, physical, unintelligent, unconscious processes), in order to design. Some of these parts ID says requires intelligence. Thus, ID is circular and/or faith-based ; faith in some alternative to brains not yet observed once. – user6552 Jan 08 '24 at 21:07
0

It is ultimately a question of definitions.

Intelligent design claims that life is created by some sort of intelligence. Most people would call an intelligence that has the capacity to do something like that a "God", but that is a question of definition. You could reasonably say that "God" would only apply to the creator of the universe, and the intelligence that designed life does not need to be the same. God could for example delegate it to a sub-god, what in Christianity is called "Angels". But then it still needs God.

A God would only not be needed if there is no God that created the universe, but life then was created by some non-supernatural, but non-living being. This is nearly impossible to imagine, and I would think most people would agree to call an non-living (possibly eternal) and powerful intelligence a "God", even if it isn't a God over all of creation.

Does then God need religion? Well, depends on your definition of religion. Many would say that any belief in a God constitutes a religion. But if God was proven to exist, we wouldn't believe, we would know, and it would not be religion, but as long as God was unproven, it would be religion. I'm in the camp of "religion" meaning that you rely on faith even when faith contradicts logic and/or facts.

Does then Intelligent Design need religion?

Well, it needs religion as long as God hasn't been shown to exist, as it then relies entirely on faith, in the face of facts and better explanations (evolution). But if God does exist, it doesn't need religion, it only needs somebody to prove God (good luck!)

Basically you can say that Intelligent Design stops needing religion once it's proven that God exists and designed life. Up until then, it needs it.

So Yes, Intelligent Design needs religion with common definitions of the words. It needs it to be believed in, to exist if you want. But there are no generally accepted definition of religion/God so it all depends. :-)

(Update: Note that having believers to not mean it becomes more correct. This is self-evident, but Chad has now several times accused me of saying this, which I of course do not say at all.)

Lennart Regebro
  • 3,618
  • 1
  • 21
  • 21
  • @Lennart Regebro, I agree that the answer to this question is heavily dependent on definitions. However, you're argument begs the question, because you define "God" as "the creator of the universe". This effectively reformulates the question as "Does belief in God's creation of the universe need religion?" Do you see how this approach to answering the question becomes immediately problematic? – smartcaveman Jun 27 '11 at 14:07
  • So in order for a god to design and create the universe it needs to be worshipped? – Chad Jun 27 '11 at 14:19
  • @smartcaveman: So you ran out of arguments, and decided to resort to personal attacks. Congratulations. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 04:50
  • @lennartregebro, My comment was not intended to be offensive, but constructive. It is generally accepted by the philosophical community that a petitio principii is a logical fallacy. I attempted to point this out and you stated that you did not see how exhibiting this logical fallacy in your argument made the argument problematic. On a separate post, you failed to acknowledge the material equivalence of two assertions that differ only by semantic formulation. If we cannot agree on the fundamental tenets of logic then we cannot reason with – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 05:01
  • each other. My recommendation that you read a good book on logic is not a personal criticism, but an attempt to establish formal logic as a common ground for discourse. – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 05:06
  • 1
  • Calling it "petito principii" when there is the perfectly common English "begging the question" is yet another example of you trying to make yourself off as superior to others. You are failing, so stop it. 2. I didn't see you claiming I begged the question, I don't know if I missed it or that was a later edit to clarify. I do not agree I beg the question.
    • – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 05:10
  • @lennartregbro, (1) I make a habit of using the Latin petitio principii because its meaning is explicit and its English counterpart "begging the question" is commonly misused. See this blog article for information on this. I said "begging the question" in the first comment, and even included a link to the Wikpedia. You said you didn't get it. (2) No edit was made. My previous comment included adequate explanation. You did not express misunderstanding. (3) I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings. – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 05:22
  • @lennartregebro, Your argument: 1. if(intelligent design) then (life created by a non-living, powerful intelligence). 2. (a non living, powerful intelligence) is materially equivalent to (God) 3. if(intelligence design) then (life created by God). 4. if(God) then (religion). Therefore, if(intelligent design) then (religion). - One of your implicit premises is that "A non-living powerful intelligence is materially equivalent to God". Based on your definitions, this premise is materially equivalent to the conclusion that "intelligent design needs religion". You are begging the question – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 06:01
  • @smartcaveman: The question is is the statement "if(intelligent design) then (religion)" true? Through the statements 1-4 above I draw the conclusion that it is. This is not begging the question. To beg the question I need to assume that the conclusion is true before I reach it, which I do not. "Based on your definitions, this premise is materially equivalent to the conclusion that "intelligent design needs religion". " No it is not. This assumption leads to that ID needs religion. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 07:15
  • Or shorter: With your view of petitio principii, all conclusions are impossible, since the definitions and assumption that lead to the conclusion means that you were begging the question, since the conclusion was logically reached. That is a misunderstanding of petitio principii. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 07:18
  • @lennartregebro, The second premise, (the proposition that "a non-living powerful intelligence is materially equivalent to God") is equivalent to the conclusion ("intelligent design requires religion"). The fallacy exists because one of the premises from which you draw your conclusion, equivalent to the conclusion. To create a valid argument from your paradigm, you would need to substantiate the claim that "a non-living powerful intelligence is materially equivalent to God". – smartcaveman Jun 29 '11 at 07:34
  • @smartcaveamn: No, it is not equivalent. The statement is patently absurd. You are wrong. Sorry. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 07:47
  • @Lennart I would propose that ID could be correct but that all of the religions of the world could be wrong. That ID can happen independantly of religion. Indeed religion is a creation of man in some cases meant to venerate god, in other simple to enrich the leaders of the church, and often various areas of the scale in between. I would also propose that the worship and veneration of that god(the creator) does not require religion. And that the lack of worship would not dimish the results of ID. – Chad Jun 29 '11 at 12:46
  • @Chad: Once again you assume that ID is correct, to argue that it doesn't need religion. I point out repeatedly that if ID is incorrect it does need religion. Do you understand the difference? As with the comment on your question, it seems to me that you think I say the exact opposite of what I actually said. This is problematic. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 12:58
  • @Chad: The question is not "does it need religion to be correct". The question is "does it need religion". – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 13:49
  • @Chad: Followers. Believers. Existence. It can NOT gain correctness, and I never claimed it could. – Lennart Regebro Jun 29 '11 at 13:52
  • @Lennart but it is possible to believe in god(as defined above) with out religion. It is possible to believe that god created the universe with out religion. It is also possible to believe in ID even if you do not believe in religion. It is possible to come up with this theory in the absense of religion. It is possible to gain followers of the theory with out religion. Granted it is unlikely but all of this is possible. – Chad Jun 29 '11 at 13:59
  • +1 to counter, this is a great answer. Could you guys clean up the comments here perhaps? @Lennart @smartcaveman – Joseph Weissman Jun 29 '11 at 23:04
  • The chat I had with Chad about this was ultimately unfruitful. He simply refuses to seriously ponder the case that ID can be incorrect, and will not even acknowledge that we agree that when ID is correct it does not need religion. – Lennart Regebro Jun 30 '11 at 02:19
  • No lennart I refuse to concede that ID IS incorrect therefore CANNOT exist. Personally I find the idea that a being with the power to create a universe would give a damn about my moral code and reward or punish me because I did or did not follow over the course of time that relitively speaking is less than a blink of an eye laughable. And the idea that he would do so with the end goal to create us bordering on the insane. But scientifically I refuse to discount it simply because I can not comprehend it. – Chad Jun 30 '11 at 17:17
  • @Chad: Nobody has made any such claim, so you don't have to concede it. I'm still open for another chat if you should change your mind and want to open up for some alternative views. – Lennart Regebro Jun 30 '11 at 20:54
  • Lennart we are not going to agree your logic and my logic seperate. I think with the right brain you thing with the wrong ( Joking http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-does-one-tell-apart-left-from-right ) – Chad Jun 30 '11 at 21:08