In the debate over whether intelligent design is science or not we often hear the complaint – rather an accusation – that ID is religion not science. Then typically, a whole host of accusations that science and religion are incompatible or that science does not allow any supernatural explanations, follows.
So is ID religion or based on religion?
Well, the real question is not just is ID religion but also is Darwinism religion? Curiously enough Darwinism under analysis turns out to be far more religious and religion based than ID! Darwin was a materialist seeking to rid science of God [see “The Darwin Myth”]. His Origin is full of speculations based on religious arguments, as is the greater part of the Darwinian literature. How so? Well, when you read any statement of the kind “God wouldn’t have done it like that” or “an intelligent being would never have made it like that”, that is religion not science.
But what is ID really? Science or religion. If one makes the ubiquitous Darwinian error of equivocating ID with creationism then of course one will necessarily think it is religion. But once one removes the fuzzy, foggy errors of Darwinian attempts at confounding ID with creationism, the fog begins to clear. The fallacy of equivocation is removed and one can see more clearly.
Intelligent Design is based on empirical evidence garnered from observation coupled with common sense (good reasoning) and the laws of logic and evidence.
Simple comparison of the basic elements of ID theory with creationism reveals the facts:
- Creationism is based on a holy book – either the bible or the Qu’ran generally speaking
ID does use any reference to any holy book at all
- Creationism claims a specific God is the designer
ID does not claim any god or gods as the designer(s)
- Creationism seeks to coincide the holy book with science
ID seeks to coincide the data with logical inferences based on abductive reasoning
Those differences alone create a significant disjunction between creationism and ID.
Furthermore, whether most, some or all IDists were also creationists is completely irrelevant. They may be Christians or Muslims or whatever, yet that in itself has no bearing on the evidence, the data and the logic involved. No more so than a Darwinian scientists views ought to be confounded with atheism because the scientist happens to be such.
In other words, the particular state of the observers’ personal beliefs has nothing to do with whether his scientific claims are justified or not! This lesson Darwinists refuse to learn and for the sole reason that it allows them continue in their perpetual attempts to confound the public mind in order to save their materialism from disaster, thus upending their whole world view and deeply disturbing their sense of security.
Now, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence believed in ID. In fact he insisted that it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion. In his letter to John Adams on April 11, 1823, he declared:
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. (my bold )
Jefferson’s design inference was clearly based anything but religion. What was his basis then?
The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised 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 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 regenerator into new and other forms. (my bold)
Empirical data from nature itself thus provided the design inference that Jefferson accepted.
Jefferson, as a man who was rather hostile toward traditional Christianity can hardly be accused of promoting fundamentalism of any kind nor of pleading for some religious basis for the design inference.
Today, many, following Jefferson’s method of logical inference, have come to the same or similar conclusions about “life the universe and everything” requiring an ultimate designer.
However in the Darwinian fundamentalist community no such suite is allowed, for as professor Lewontin stated without even blushing,
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
And even worse:
“Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.”
-Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.”
Obviously we have here a salient declaration of religion. The religion of the materialist, the atheist.
So whose “science” is really religion? ID or Darwinism?
All scientific observations and conclusions may have metaphysical and thus religious implications. Implications are not the science itself. Darwinism has many metaphysical, religious implications. So does ID. So does the Big Bang theory.
It amazes me to see how so many of the general public have been suckered into believing that scientists are somehow the real “saints” leading humanity to utopia, when in fact we have a confession of glaring dishonesty on the part on one world renown geneticist admitting that scientists lie!
This begs the question: So why should I trust a materialist scientists on anything at all? And the answer is of course, I shouldn’t. Not before examining the complete evidence as far as possible, seeking signs of motives and following the money trail. “Fortune and glory”, said Indiana Jones.
In all human history the great majority of mankind have logically made the design inference.
However, since the post-modern era of generalized claims that there is no God, no real good or evil, no absolute truth, many of the
badly highly educated have deemed themselves in a position to simply deny reality, as atheists always do, and boldly claim that since there is no God Darwinism MUST be true.
Thankfully, once again, those who possess at least some degree of lucidity see that that itself is a religious argument not a scientific one!
Besides the fact that claiming, “there is no God”, is a logically unsupportable religious affirmation, the consequential Darwinian dogma that follows is also just another religious statement.
Darwinism is thus far more religious than any ID theory out there.