[Return to Essay List]

ID as Religion

(Return to Top)

First these definitions:

Su·per·nat·u·ral adj. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):
  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

God n. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):

  1. God
    1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
    2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
  2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
  3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
  4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
  5. A very handsome man.
  6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Re·li·gion n. (Dictionary.com definition, click here):

    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
  2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
  3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
(Return to Top)

The ID premises:

from Wikipedia.com: Intelligent Design (click, bold in the original): (*)
The intelligent design (ID) movement is a body of belief that states that life and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent. Specifically, the conjecture focuses on the 'what' of the origin of life on Earth, i.e. saying that it is not possible for 'non-living' matter to become 'living' matter (with the level of organization that is observed today) without intervention. The 'Who, why, when, where and how' are theoretically excluded from the debate, although the idea is more often than not identified with religious arguments, with inevitable extension into those other domains.

Advocates of ID believe there is empirical evidence that an Intelligent Designer has been at work in the history of life, and that macroevolution of life, and particularly the evolution of humans, has been guided by that Designer. Members of the "intelligent design movement" are typically Christians (primarily Evangelicals, plus one prominent Unificationist), but ID itself does not specify the identity of the Designer.

Proponents of intelligent design point to complex biological structures such as the eye, birds' wings, the existence of mitochondria, bacterial flagella, etc., arguing that such structures could not possibly have developed due purely to random mutations, even with the aid of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships, such as plants which can only be pollinated by a specific species of insect, which in turn can only reproduce by using the plant, could not have arisen, they argue—a typical chicken and egg problem. It is argued that these kinds of biological features are by their very nature too interdependent to come into existence independently through a natural process and then become so intricately intertwined. Opponents say these examples have been adequately explained.

(Note: also see Irreducible Complexity at Wikipedia (click). (*)

Essentially what the primary premise comes down to this: if you cannot {find\develop\show} a natural explanation for a process or feature, then you must assume an outside agent was involved in the design and implementation of that process or feature. You could invert this to say that if a design explanation is true then there is no natural explanation that is true.

A secondary premise is that if there is a designer involved in {the features and processes of life and the universe} then evidence of that design can be discovered through scientific means. In other words, if a designer is involved there exists an "x" such that a design explanation of "x" is true.

This article does not discuss the logical validity of these two premises, but I don't think I have misrepresented what the ID movement position is.

(*) Note that Wikipedia is in continuous update, and what is quoted here may not be what it says anymore on the linked page. This can be a little frustrating for those looking for complete definitions and references, but this really means is that the information is the most up-to-date on the webpage. Please notify me of any changes you find, so that I can keep this up-to-date as well.

(Return to Top)

The Argument

Let us call this designer a "design being" and see where logic, the ID premises and the word definitions given above lead us:
    ... ID premise 2:
  1. IF {a design being is involved} is true THEN {there exists an "x" such that only a design explanation of "x" will do} is true
    ... ID premise 1:
  2. IF {there exists an "x" such that only a design explanation of "x" will do} is true THEN {all natural explanations of "x" will not do} is true
    ... by logic:
  3. IF {all natural explanations of "x” will not do} is true THEN {a NOT natural explanation of "x"} is true
    ... by definition of “supernatural” given above:
  4. IF { a NOT natural explanation of "x" is true } THEN {a supernatural explanation of "x"} is true
    ... by logic:
  5. IF {a supernatural explanation of "x"} is true THEN {a being causing “x” used supernatural powers or attributes to do "x"} is true
    ... by definition of “god” given above:
  6. IF {a being causing “x” used supernatural powers or attributes to do "x"} is true THEN {the being is a god} is true
    ... and therefore:
  7. IF {a design being is involved} is true THEN {the being is a god} is true
(Return to Top)

My Conclusions

The concept of ID is a formalized belief in a designer, because of the effort that has gone into formalizing it by the proponents.

Any formalized belief in a designer is necessarily a formalized belief in a god (by the argument given above).

Therefore the concept of ID is a formalized belief in a god.

We can quibble about the relative abilities and attributes of this ID god compared to others, but the fact remains that it is at least a lesser god if not the "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" type God. This puts the ID god at least at the power and attribute level of the gods of various polytheistic religions of old. There can be one god designer or several god designers, it still doesn't matter to their godhood.

Any formalized belief in a god or gods is a religion by definition (see 1.a. above: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.").

Therefore the concept of ID is a Religion.

Q.E.D.

This constitutes my third independent logical proof that ID is a form of religious faith. To date, not one of them has been refuted by a proponent of ID.

Enjoy.

(Return to Top)

(Note: this is an essay and as such represents the opinions of the author. You can e-mail comments to me at RAZD8@yahoo.com)
[Return to Essay List]

we are limited in our ability to understand
.... by our ability to understand
Rebel A American . Zen [ Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...