How could "Intelligent Design" not be a religious idea?

Question

A lot of people try to get the story of creation into science classes by calling it "intelligent design" and claiming it has no basis in religion. I'm wondering, however, how you could separate it from religion. If there is some all powerful designer out there, wouldn't it have to be a deity just to have the power to design? So doesn't that place the "theory" firmly in the realm of religion? I suppose it could be a deity for which no specific religion has been created, but if we knew about said deity someone would make a religion about it. Whatever god you decide was the designer you still have to include a god in the "theory," so where is that distinction from religion?

And where was the science again?

ID also attempts to explain how life began, so those aliens you speak of were not "the Designer." They could not have created the FIRST life. So we're still left looking for a magic deity.

In the very least, anything that could whip up a batch of humans could be considered a demi-god, so it is still based in religion. You can't get away from the fact that the power necessary to be a "designer" would make that designer a deity.

Answer 1

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

The difference is between the evidence and the implications. We believe the evidence points to an intelligence. As to the identity of that intelligence, that is a completely different question.

Now, is design a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George W. Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

Answer 2

There are a few problems with the intelligent design theory. First, it lacks empirical evidence. Second, the reasoning behind it is a little sketchy. The argument they use is "If you find a coke can on the ground, you wouldn't say it had no designer, right? Therefore the universe was created and had a designer." The problem with this is that what they are doing is taking a man-made example on this tiny little planet, in this tiny star system, in this one galaxy, and applying it to the ENTIRE gigantic universe itself. I think that's a problem, personally. Thirdly, they can never answer why it MUST be one designer and NOT multiple designers.

Answer 3

Well they don't mention who the intelligent designer was inside court so it could be an alien.

But get them into a church and see who they say the intelligent designer was.

As for where the science was, I'm not quite sure, they don't actually seem to have any (at least nothing that has not already been found to be false). It also contradicts reality since there are a lot of examples of screw ups that indicate that the designer wasn't very intelligent

Answer 4

I do believe that intelligent design is related to religiosity. It's true, that the theory does imply that there is a being who is much greater than us who is in charge. However, we don't HAVE to build a religion around this theory, but we do. Religion is a set of beliefs which are expanded upon through dogma and specific belief systems. The same can be said of science. Science is a set of beliefs that can be expanded upon through scientific principle and theories.

Answer 5

It's the churche's way of sneaking religion into the classroom. They figure that by saying "intelligent designer " instead of "god" they could pass it off as not being religion .
If the big bozo in the sky can make the whole universe with a wave of his magic wand - - - whatever name you put on him , he still amounts to that stinky brown stuff that the bull produces .

Answer 6

This is just an attempt to sneak Jesus into the science classroom dressed in a white lab coat. Sorry, I'm not fooled.

Intelligent design fails because of ONE simple observation.

This "designer" also needs an explanation. To say that it just magically always existed from nothing is NOT acceptable.

And INTO THE TRASH CAN goes I.D.

Answer 7

They rely on the fact that they don't explicitly say God is the creator. ID requires God's existence, but I don't think they teach the kids that. They just tell them there must be a "designer" which is an obvious euphemism for God.

ID makes no predictions; it forgot about the whole "science" part.

Answer 8

Depends on which Intelligent Design you may be speaking of. There's the creationist view more held by Christians, but there are other views that are not religious but more spiritual and also rational, like Deism.

Answer 9

Simple. Not that I espouse the idea, but there are those who believe humans were a creation of aliens from other galaxies, if not their offspring. So, in that case, strictly speaking, unless you want to find an a "grey" to worship, it can be said to not be a totally religious idea.

Hey. You asked!!

Answer 10

It's just the latest version of creationism.

Like when you try an update your car by sticking a bodykit and some furry dice on it, a spray job, some stickers, and hey..a new car...still drives from B to A. But it's new!! And it doesn't just compete with those other vehicles and modes of travel...it actually PWNS THEM ALL by dropping an oilslick and pointing in the other direction!

Why, how? Well, er, it just does, OK?