This is a brilliantly written essay speaking out against Intelligent Design. I couldn’t have written it better myself.
Interesting. I kept thinking of Martin Niemöller as I read it.
-
About Bad Astronomy
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science.
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Science Getaways
Subscribe to BA
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
- A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
- Animal Friendships: My cover story for Time magazine
- The Future of E-books–podcast of my interview on Wisconsin Public Radio
- Thursday, February 16: Science and social media panel in New York
- A Scientific Jonah: My profile of Joy Reidenberg in tomorrow’s New York Times
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
October 27th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Brilliant Article.
I couldn’t have explained it better than that. It’s about time we start to realize the true threat irrational thinking is to the future of science, and take precautions to steer the next generation towards logic, rational thought, and the scientific process.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:55 am
I do wonder if Creationism is shooting itself in the foot with something “that seemed like a good idea at the time”
It is God of the Gaps revisited, and they are going after complex systems and ignoring simple systems, which evolutionists are seen to have covered completely.
In the Creationist ethos, both are designed as is, not just the complex. So ID, seems to me to make Creationism internally inconsistant and engaging in cherry picking
The appearence of being deceptive by the scientific community is also a concern, as it smashes a whole load of bridges that some of us have been trying to build between faith and science. ID is seen as creationism by the back door, surely it would be more consistant to the ideals of truth and integrity that people of faith cling to, and want to be seen clinging to, to do Creationism by the front door.
There is a solution to the problem of creationism being mentioned in schools, without upsetting the scientific community. When I was at school we had a section called humanities, which looked at things such as philosophies and other people’s beliefs, so we could interact amongst other people. Place the mentioning of creationist beliefs here, and you could also include non-Chrisitan creationist beliefs. The evolutionists would be free to teach evolutionary theory, with its accompanying holes and speculations in biology classes to their hearts content unmolested.
It could work for the UK, but somehow I suspect in the US the ACLU may still object in their blinkered attitude that religion is bad atheism is good. I also suspect though that creationists may see this as a compromise to far, I would just like to see someway we can stop this fighting.
I have in my libray a book, I forget it’s title now, but it is a list of scientific demonstration experiments, with the full details of the science involved, that can be used to demonstrate spiritual and moral lessons. Science and Religion in perfect harmony.
Why can we not all just get along?
October 27th, 2005 at 2:58 am
Can I also add, the I suggest people read “Gods in the Sky” by Dr Allen Chapman, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
October 27th, 2005 at 4:05 am
To Sticks,
As it is now ID is pretty much where it belongs, in the humanities section, as an offshot of religion. The problem is that supporters of ID think it is science and claims that it have a place in biology classes on an equal foot with evolution.
Where the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts. ID is based on a creator beyond our understanding so any evidence you find contrary to your belief of creation must be discarded as ‘That’s just the way it was created, when God created the earth he also created the fossils’.
To teach people to disregard factual evidence because it is contrary to their beliefs will stop all science dead in its tracks. This is why ID must be kept out of the science classes.
Science is not picking a fight, they are defending themselves.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:19 am
I agree, for different reasons sort of.
Keep it out of the science classes and in the humanities classes. By trying to put it into science classes all we do is cause opposition and stress out those who in good conscience do not feel it belongs. (Hardly winning hearts and minds here, which is what those in faith are supposed to do!)
If we want to have mention of creationism in the school system, the humanities route has to be the way, otherwise we do not get a look in. We have a saying in the UK, “half a loaf is better than none” people heavily into ID need to wake up and smell the coffee, their efforts are proving counter productive.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:26 am
I believe the article was brilliant, and an absolute requirement to download, study, and utilize. So, expectanly, I clicked on the PDF link to get a nice PDF file. Imagine my surprise when I find out that I cannot download a PDF of this file unless I am a member of … gee, I forget.
What a ridiculous situation. Here we have a great weapon in the fight against ID, and we can’t use it (at least in a nice, compact, printable format). This article in particular should be available to all as a PDF download for free.
It’s this kind of “tunnel stupidity”, as I call it, that is enabling the backers of ID to be more successful than they should be.
October 27th, 2005 at 6:16 am
I, too, felt disappointment about having to be a member to get the PDF for free, or to have to pay $12 US to get it as a non-member. Sure, that’s not a ton of money in the grand scheme of things, but right now I have little to no “disposable” income… I can’t even afford to buy an ink cartridge for my printer to make a hard copy! (I wonder, would I be charged for making a printed copy as well?)
On a different note, regarding Sticks’ point about teaching ID as part of a humanities course, I have no problem with that; I’ve been wishing for years that American schools would teach a general comparitive religion course as a humanities elective. When I went to college, I took a few such courses just to broaden my understanding of the various religions of the world I was becoming a more active part of. The courses focused on teaching, not preaching, and were quite interesting. I already knew what my beliefs were, and no “conversion” or “brainwashing” occurred. I like to think that most upper level high school children/young adults are smart enough to understand all that as well. Most American parents’ opposition to teaching religion in school is that they’re afraid that their children will be converted to some “other” religion. Don’t even get me started on how “evil” some parents consider science.
October 27th, 2005 at 6:59 am
CR – The fear most parents have concerning the teaching of so-called “Comparitive Religions” classes is not that their children will be “converted” to another faith, but that they will begin to question their own. The real “brainwashing” you mentioned has already ocurred in the family’s indoctrination into Methodism, Baptism, Catholicism, Judaism, agnosticism, etc. Most parents don’t want what’s taught at school to question what they’ve been literally preaching since the birth of their children.
As a teacher and principal of middle and high school students for more than 30 years, I can assure you teens question everything and challenge belief systems vehemently – even their own. This is a good thing, I think, but most parents won’t agree with me. Indeed, if my son had informed me in his 8th grade year that he was converting to Islam or Satanism or some obscure faith because of what he had been learning in CR class, I think I would have had some serious parental objections.
I remember school occasions when I witnessed the level of guilt and indroctination that had been deeply impressed on the minds of many of my students. A recent example was when an 8th-grade girl refused to follow her English teacher’s instructions to create a three-column table, listing the “Gods & Godesses”, “The Greeks”, and “The Trojans” (they were doing an introduction to Homer’s “The Iliad”). The young lady’s objections focused on the capitalization the word “God”, which she had been taught should only be capitalized when referred to the God of Abraham. She was obviously very agitated, embarassed and confused. The teacher allowed her to avoid the caps (wrongly, in my opinion – but not a big deal) and the lesson continued. The guilt and humiliation this lovely child experienced over this conflict with her deeply-held religious faith and the requirements of her secular education point out the difficulties faced by public school teachers and administrators in our modern world. Remember, this was in English class – not science class.
My son teaches 7th and 9th grade science every day. He has related to me on several occasions when students have openly challenged his lessons when any reference was made to natural selection, the ancient age of the Earth and the universe, and other well-established “scientific theories.” The students’ comments ranged from a quiet, “That’s not true.”, to angry, open defiance of his explanations.
The task of educating our young people is daunting. Adding “Comparative Religions” to the required curriculum in public schools will only confound it. Besides, no teacher preparation programs that I am aware of currently offer undergraduate courses which would lead to such a certification – so who will teach the CR sections? That’s scary enough, I think. Leave that curriculum to the college philosophy departments – not the public schools.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:06 am
Re: copy of article.
Ummm… can’t you just copy the text of the article to a text file? It’s not a PDF but it’s still universal.
Or someone with Mac OS X can make a PDF out of it right from Safari and post it. OS X as system level PDF creation.
I’d do it, but I’m at work where we are forced to use stupid Windows machines.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Would that not be a violation of copyright?
October 27th, 2005 at 7:50 am
>I’ve been wishing for years that American schools would
>teach a general comparitive religion course as a
>humanities elective.
I’ve often thought that would be a fantastic idea, however, I also think that if it became (or started to become) a widespread practice, Christian fundamentalist elements would mount a campaign against what they would perceive to be comparing their righteous faith against heathen jiggery-pokery. The result would be similar to what is now happening between ID and science.
Perhaps it’s a cynical view, but it appears to fit current observations.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Richard, thanks for your enlightening post… I was looking at things from my own perspective as a former student, rather than as a teacher. Who WOULD teach such a course, and how would they be certified? I realize (and failed to point it out in my earlier post) that there would be some dissent about comparitive religion being taught, but your annecdotes really drive home how bad it could actually be. Just because I have no problem with it doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t (obviously), but I failed to think about the difficulties the teacher would have.
Just to nitpick, I had pointed out that any CR courses taught at high school level should be electives, rather than requirements. Even so, though, I see a little more clearly the inherent problems that could occur. Thinking it over, I have to agree with you about teaching CR as a course (or courses) is best left to the college level. (I hope I don’t come across as one whose mind is easily changed on a whim. Hmm… now I know why in the past people looked at me like I was nuts for suggesting teaching CR in high schools! Too bad they didn’t speak up sooner about WHY they thought I was nuts.)
On the other hand, your example of “The Iliad” shows that at the high school level, some mention of various religious/philosophical beliefs is unavoidable, and some background will inevitably have to be taught in the course of various lessons that involve them. I hope that any confrontation such occurrences may cause can be dealt with sensitively without compromising the point of the lesson.
Just to clarify my stand on ID: it’s not science, and should not be taught as such. And although I personally have no problem with learning about religions as philosophies (even those I don’t believe in), I don’t advocate one religion being taught favorably/preferentially over another, at any level.
To end on a funnier note, I didn’t know there were courses being taught about me. (When I first saw your abbreviation “CR,” I automatically read it as my initals!)
October 27th, 2005 at 8:07 am
I made a PDF of the article as it is posted on the web site. You can download it at the link above (the one you get by clicking on my name, I think).
October 27th, 2005 at 8:11 am
It goes without saying that I do not believe it is a copyright violation to duplicate, unchanged and in its entirety, a web page that is posted publicly. However, if BA or the site admins believe otherwise, I will not get annoyed if someone deletes my previous post or edits out the link.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:40 am
In my high school, which was a public “magnet” high school, we were required to take a course freshman year that included a significant comparitive religion component. The course was called “Inquiry Skills”, and I have never heard of any complaint regarding it (except by a few students who thought it was useless). In fact, other high schools in the country with the same program we had were busy trying to duplicate the course while I was there.
And it is technically violating copyright law to duplicate that article and distribute it without the writer’s permission. It is no different than copying a book, song, or movie and giving it away free online. The fact that it is posted online does not negate the copyright holder’s legal rights, any more than publishing something in a book or magazine negates the copyright holder’s legal rights. Copyright is copyright, no matter how the owner distributes it. The only exception is when the owner specifically waives his or her rights, such as in GNU licensed materials, but this article does not fall under that category. Whether BA wishes to enforce this or not, however, is up to him.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:55 am
I’ve been saying these things since Bush got elected the first time and started talking about “faith-based initiatives”. People tell me to lighten up and calm down; things like this couldn’t possibly happen in a modern country like USA. I steer them to sites like this one and the Discovery Institute site and they get very quiet. They become terrified, as I have been terrified by these fanatics for years.
ID isn’t the real issue. As the linked article shows, it’s the “thin edge of the wedge” that the fanatics are using to destroy religious freedom in the US.
I’ve been told that fanatics have been trying to turn US into a theocracy since its inception. That’s true, but this time they are succeeding!
Side note: I have to chuckle at the flimsy ID ploy to suggest that the Designer doesn’t have to be a god, it can be an alien. Earthly life is too complex to come about without a Designer but alien life vastly superior to human isn’t? Much less amusing is the ID attack claiming that science is a religion. Obviously they intend to claim that if science, a religion, can be taught in public schools, then their brand of religion can’t be excluded on legal grounds.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
After some consideration, I have removed the PDF file. I think anyone who wants the article can figure out how to get it on their own without my help.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
I have no problem with teaching CR classes in high school in theory. In practice, though, there are numerous problems to consider. The primary one being the boundary between being taught about religions and being taught the religions. Learning about the differences between Catholics, Protestants, Mormans, Jews, Muslims, and the comparisons to Greek, Roman, Norse, etc, but not advocating one should be a Catholic, Protestant, Morman, Jew, Muslim, etc.
The problem is many elementary and secondary education teachers in this country are not able to remain equal-handed in this matter, and cross the line to advocate their own particular beliefs. That is most definitely what these classes should not be. I also don’t think the classes should be actively advocating atheism or agnosticism or humanism. Certainly discuss them if you’re discussing the others, but not pushing any agenda.
The problem is once students start applying critical thought to why X is such a stupid notion and Y is such a silly practice, they then will turn that critical thought (or will be prodded by others to do so) toward their own religion. That is the fear of many parents (and religious advocates).
I’ve known it to happen. In high school I was a participant in a special state program over the summer that was created with the intention of developing critical thinking skills in the “leaders of tomorrow”. This program is perpetually under fire from parents because their 17 year old teens come home with radical new ideas and questioning their family’s religious beliefs. There have been concerted efforts to change the nature and scope of the program over this specific topic. Read that again – all participants were over the age of 16 because they had to be rising seniors – over the summer just before their senior year. And this program was a special program that you had to apply to attend. This was a very select crowd – 400 students from across the state. Can you imagine the controversy that would erupt if this type of thing were implemented across the board? In small town communities in rural states like Arkansas and Mississippi?
October 27th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Sticks Said:
>It could work for the UK, but somehow I suspect in the US the ACLU may still object in their blinkered attitude that religion is bad atheism is good.
I don’t think that is an accurate description of the ACLU’s attitude at all. From the ACLU website:
***
The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.
The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one’s religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.
The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business.
***
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm
A lot of their focus is on the establishment clause aspect, because that is the aspect most endangered and most needing attention. However, here are two examples of the ACLU defending religion.
ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=18887&c=29
PORTALES, NM — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today announced that it has succeeded in freeing street preacher Shawn Miller from the Roosevelt County jail. Miller was arrested last April after Portales police claimed he was yelling at passing cars, although Miller maintains he was merely “preaching the word of God.â€?
“Mr. Miller has a guaranteed right to stand on a street corner and proclaim his faith in God to all who pass by,� said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. “He wasn’t harassing or intimidating anyone. He certainly should not have spent time under lock and key for such a minor incident.�
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Religious Discrimination by North Carolina Courts
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=18816&c=29
RALEIGH, NC — The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s practice of refusing to allow people of faith to take an oath in court using a religious text other than the Christian Bible.
[snip]
On June 28, 2005, the ACLU of North Carolina wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts, calling upon that rule-making body to adopt a policy allowing the use of the Qur’an and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings… Muslim groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and interfaith religious organizations also joined the ACLU in calling upon the state courts to respect religious diversity by allowing the use of multiple religious texts.
Note that the lawsuit from Texas that went to the Supreme Court a couple years ago about prayers at football games was filed by two religious families who felt their religions were being omitted/denigrated by the majority opinion. They were supported by the ACLU.
The ACLU is not anti-religion, nor anti-Christianity. It seeks to prevent/reduce the government intrusions into matters of faith. It seeks to eliminate situations where one religion or set of religions is given government sanction over others or non-religion.
For other efforts related to the Free Exercise clause, see below:
http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=18262&c=94
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142
October 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
That’s a brilliant article–a definite addition to my IE Bookmarks!
October 27th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Irishman Says:
> Sticks Said:
>> It could work for the UK, but somehow I suspect in the US the
>> ACLU may still object in their blinkered attitude that religion
>> is bad atheism is good.
>
> I don’t think that is an accurate description of the ACLU’s attitude at all.
That’s right, it’s NOT the ACLU’s attitude. How do you develop the idea that religious neutrality is anti-religious?? I suppose it arises because the ACLU has come out against drives by the Christian right to push parts of its religious agenda in the public arena, but still–that’s mistaking defense for offense.
The ACLU stands for the political and religious rights of all Americans, not just conservative Christians, atheists, or anyone in between.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
A very interesting article, well written and convincingly put. I myself have been complacent about the IDers, writing the worst of them off as cranks and the most well-meaning as simply ignorant. But they’re not just cranks if they genuinely see this as a weapon to convert the world to their way of thinking. They’ve got a plan, it’s effective, and they’re carrying it out. That scares the pants off me. And yes, I am a Christian. I’m just not an ignorant fool, so I don’t believe in teaching ID in the schools. Maybe God influenced our evolution, although I doubt it — and if He did, I’d like to complain about these knees — but if He did, it’s beyond the scope of science. Science isn’t about making assumptions and bending observations to fit them, which is what the IDers do. It’s about observing and making sense out of this glorious and wonderful universe that we live in. I honestly do not understand why they feel so threatened by this, but after reading this article, I can no longer blind myself to the fact that a great many influential people *do* feel threatened by science, enough to launch what they feel to be a counter-attack.
The one problem I have with the article is that it is intended for an audience of people who already reject the notion that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory on a par with the theory of evolution. (It isn’t. It is, at best, a conjecture.) As such, it is not the best vehicle to bring the unconvinced to a better understanding of what science really is (and of what ID really is). In particular, I can think of several very well-made points in the article which a religious person would probably take as reasons not to favor evolution. They aren’t working in the same context as us. I spend enough time at church to understand that context; I’ve been in it myself, and there is a certain amount of thinking that I do in that context. (It’s perfect for philosophy, for instance.) I am inspired to write a companion piece that would speak to the religious. Perhaps it’s the evangelist in me, but I can’t help thinking that if only we could explain ourselves to them, they wouldn’t feel so threatened by science that they would try to deliberately destroy it. It would be interesting — defeating ID from a religious perspective.
October 27th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Not a bad point, Calli. A supplemental, religiously-based article might be helpful.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
When Leon mentioned he was adding this article to his IE bookmarks it reminded me of a few saved bookmarks I thought I would share, all relating to criticism of ID. I might have picked up a few here at Bad Astronomy, sorry if you’ve already seen them. I try to show these to my friends who think that ID deserves equal time in the classroom.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
(A very good report from Natural History Magazine, definatley worth a read if you have not already.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tue3.html?ex=1282449600&en=55ae46551ab20405&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
(A New York Times editorial explaining the grasping of the depth of time as a prerequisite for understanding evolution.)
http://www.highestschool.com/
(This is just hilarious.)
Anyone have any more?
October 27th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
I dunno, why don’t we let the ID guys go out and do some biology and medicine stuff based on ID and see what they come up with?
October 27th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
They’ve had the opportunity for years. In fact, their plan to destroy science (called the “Wedge Document”) specifically involves plans to publish scientific papers in peer-review journals as a critical component of success. That is the only component of the initial part of the plan they have not fulfilled, in fact they have absolutely refused to try to fulfill it. This is despite the fact that there are several biochemists in their group who are in a position to publish such literarute.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
OK I am back
Re ACLU – All I had heard of them from this side of the pond was how they were supporting cases where things like monuments with the 10 commandments were to be banned, the pledge of allegience to be amended etc. I was not aware they actually defended people of faith. However the first case Irishman mentioned about the preacher, in the UK he probably would be locked up, especially when the new law about “religious hatred” is passed outlawing jokes about religion.
Re who would teach about the various comparative religions in a humanities class.
When I did it in a high school in the midlands, I remember that when we covered either Hinduism or Seikism, we were taken to one of their temples for a visit. Would it be possible therefore to get an approved guest speak from that particular religion, such as a rabbi, an iman, a priest, a member of the humanist association etc?
A year or so ago at work when we were having some lectures on valuing diversity they did just that. I sat in on the Islam seminar and we got to answer all sorts of questions. it worked quite well.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Sorry I should have said “ask all sorts of Questions” :doh:
October 28th, 2005 at 5:57 am
Excellent article.
October 28th, 2005 at 6:50 am
Hey Sticks, the difference is in the UK we DO have an Established religion, the Bishops sit in the House of Lords and the Queen is leader of the Church.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:21 am
Sticks Said:
>Re ACLU – All I had heard of them from this side of the pond was how they were supporting cases where things like monuments with the 10 commandments were to be banned, the pledge of allegience to be amended etc.
In other words, cases where religion has been given preferential treatment by the government.
Regarding Comparative Religion classes, you suggestion has merit. Again, the competing interests are to have speakers who (1) are knowledgable about the specific religion, and who (2) are not proseletyzing or advocating, merely informing. There would have to be some sort of speaker approval process, creating new sorts of bureaucratic processes for approval and monitoring. The alternative is to allow blatant proseletyzing from everyone, then have the instructor play “devil’s advocate” to each and actively criticize. Oops, then you have “state sponsored religion bashing”.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:45 am
All I know is that when our place of employment did this under valuing diversity, it seemed quite well done and informative. They explained what they believed and answered questions. I did not feel I was proseletyzed.
Could this list be done at the county level, in consultation with interfaith dialogue groups. Are schools in the US all independant or is there some kind of local education authority over seeing them, like in the UK?
October 28th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Sticks Says:
When I did it in a high school in the midlands, I remember that when we covered either Hinduism or Seikism, we were taken to one of their temples for a visit. Would it be possible therefore to get an approved guest speak from that particular religion, such as a rabbi, an iman, a priest, a member of the humanist association etc?
That’s a fantastic idea. If we were to hold such classes (most likely in college rather than high school), that would be an ideal inclusion!
October 28th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Sticks Says:
All I know is that when our place of employment did this under valuing diversity, it seemed quite well done and informative. They explained what they believed and answered questions. I did not feel I was proseletyzed.
And that sort of thing is the key to any such course: making it clear that people are being taught ABOUT religions, not being taught religion.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
The key thing that Sticks pointed out is that, if we don’t want an ongoing war between science and religion (and we shouldn’t want that, frankly), we have to find an educational model that works for both camps. From the ID types I’ve talked to, their biggest beef is not evolution, its materialism. This is a philosophical extension of science, but is not science itself. I think a BIG part of resolving this dispute would be to separate science from materialism. Here is the difference:
In effect, science *assumes* materialism as a working hypothesis, which makes the rest of it doable. But recall that the article we are discussing complains about ID science “by assumption”– the point is, science is not about the assumptions made, it’s about the results of tests. Materialism is a useful concept for understanding the universe, and it helps make sense of the tests. It has not been falsified, we’ve only had to generalize it for things like relativity and quantum mechanics. But when people make statements like “there is no purpose to the universe” or “there is nothing beyond the material”, these are not part of science. They are philosophies that have arisen out of science, so tend to get lumped together with it. This is to our detriment, because it makes us vulnerable to being called a “religion”, or at least, a natural philosophy.
Thus, I argue it is time we distanced science from the concept of natural philosophy– that is an archaic notion right alongside of using science to prove the existence of God. Science cannot be used to prove God exists, nor can it be used to disprove God. Either endeavor (and don’t kid yourselves, both are occurring) is a fool’s errand, and only serves to fuel the animosity between the camps. Science is a set of rules, a way of approaching questions, that has tremendous practical value, and it exhibits great flexibility, objectivity, and self-consistency. It works for all religions, it works for all philosophies. Because it is *not* itself a philosophy, and it has no claim to being better at informing philosophical positions that does religion. If we could stress that point, I think the ID camp would lose most of the wind from its sails, whereas if we instead trumpet the idea that ours is the only attitude of value for humanity, then we kick up a hurricane.
October 28th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
One note, since it came up tangentally. I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. That is the idea that somehow ID doesn’t belong in science classes but instead in humanities classes. I certainly agree with the first clause. It is the second that raises my ire as a philosopher. In particular, unless you go the route of the comparitive religion course (done properly! – when I was in high school in Quebec, such a thing was part of the curriculum, but done very poorly, at least at my school) or perhaps the general (non-commital) philosophy class. Putting it in any other philosophy class is a case of moving the lump under the carpet to another place. Specifically, it prevents development of a world view independently of science. To claim that ID has philosophical relevance in terms of being a plausible hypothesis about the world is bogus, in exactly the same way as it is bogus to claim it is science. In short, you can pick between a secular or a religious world view, but they are very difficult to join – in that sense the fundamentalists are correct, I think. By moving ID to philosophy you have just simply postponed your cognitive dissonance. (I for one think that philosophy has to become increasingly allied with science in various ways – see my website – or it will become useless at best, a source of actually harmful ideas of all kinds at worst. Clark Glymour’s essay about this is also worth reading.)
October 28th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
I find it funny and slightly disapointing reading that parents don’t want kids to apply critical thought to their own religion. They don’t want their kids challenging it. At the Church I attend challenging ones religion and overcoming problems is recomended. It boosts strength and knowledge of ones religion. Or, alternetively, it shows you if your religion is wrong.
(BTW, perhaps it would be good if students were told to speculate evolution and creation. A lot can be gained by such a study. And remember, if evolution is true, then it should be obvious to the students, and vise/versa.)
Religions are covered in history classes, you know. Comparitive religions would be much like a history or social studies class. Just more specific. It would make a good elective in high school or college.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
I agree with M Duke above, except on the point about the truth being “obvious”. The whole problem with using religion in science is its tendency to be a “magic bullet”. Don’t unstand lightning? No problem, Thor is doing it. Don’t understand thunder? Why trouble yourself, God is bowling. These are things we might tell a child, but when a mind is ready to come of age, it is ready to start looking for answers that are not obvious, that take years or generations of experimentation and analysis, and even then stretch the imagination to understand. Yet this is a capacity that humans have, amazingly, and we should give it a chance to develop, unhindered by religious preconceptions. That is ultimately the point of keeping ID out of science classes. At the same time, the point of keeping science *in* science classes, and not generalize it to all of existence, is that it never claimed to be all things to all people. It’s just the process that can make sense of the way the material world works, enough to build a bridge that an ID believer would actually drive over.
October 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Oh and, since I said I agreed, I should also be clear that I do not think one can characterize a religion as being “wrong”. What would that look like, the method for doing that? If one applied the scientific method, then it’s not religion that is being tested, and if one applied their own personal value system, than how can it be “wrong” in any universal way? All you can say is, you can question and test your religion to better understand what it means to you, and what aspects of it resonate with you, versus what aspects you do not value and will choose to leave behind. Where does the idea come from that one religion is “right”? The one you just happened to be born into, or exposed to when you were impressionable? And why does one have to accept all or none of it? Does you only go to restaurants where you like *everything* on the menu? Even if you believe that a single religion, out of them all, was actually inspired by the true God, what about misinterpretations in how the inspiration is coming across?
October 28th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
The lightning example is a very good one. Science investigates the phenomenon to determine what it is and what causes it. The answer is that it’s electricity, and we believe it’s caused by differently-charged particles in a storm front (to greatly simplify it).
God may still be behind it all! A naturalistic explanation doesn’t preclude a supreme being. It’s just that we’ve determined the physical mechanisms at work that generate lightning.
And yet, the truth behind the (physical) nature of lightning ISN’T OBVIOUS. If anything, it’s counterintuitive, until you understand a lot of the underlying science: how electricity is generated, how charged particles move within a storm front, etc.
It seems to me that if you exposed high-school students to two explanations for lightning–one saying what I outlined above, the other saying that some unknown intelligent being is creating it–you’d see a lot of students accept the “intelligent being” idea and reject the meterological one.
October 29th, 2005 at 3:16 am
A very good article. Thanks for the link, BA.
Some of you may be interested to hear of my own experience of what were called Religious Education classes in England in the ’80s. Essentially, the teacher stuck to the facts : the Bible says this … followers of Islam believe x, y and z (I didn’t actually pay enough attention to remember it all 20-odd years later) … Judaism involves this, that and the other. No individual position was advocated in any way. The biggest crtiticism I heard of the classes was that they were boring.
And the UK, which has an institutional state religion, has greater religious diversity than any other nation I have ever visited or read about.
This was not always the case, however. After Henry VIII (who created the Anglican church and dissolved all the catholic monasteries) died, his son Edward ascended the throne, but Edward was ill and sickly and died soon after taking the throne. He named his heir Lady Jane Grey, but she was not sufficiently well-supported and was deposed soon after. That was when Mary (the eldest daughter of Henry VIII) ascended the throne. She was a devout catholic and instituted intensive persecution of protestants in England (as well as allying Elngland, briefly, with Spain). She thus earned herself the nickname Bloody Mary.
However, she conceived no heir and died of cancer within a few years of taking the throne. Next in line was Elizabeth I, who was herself a protestant and was strongly pressured to do to the catholics as had previously been done to the protestants. She was strong enough to plot a nearly middle course. Catholicism was outlawed, but there was no bloody reign of terror.
October 29th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Leon, Ken G, and others have kept insisting that: “Science cannot be used to prove God exists, nor can it be used to disprove God. Either endeavor (and don’t kid yourselves, both are occurring) is a fool’s errand, and only serves to fuel the animosity between the camps. Science is a set of rules, a way of approaching questions, that has tremendous practical value, and it exhibits great flexibility, objectivity, and self-consistency. It works for all religions, it works for all philosophies. Because it is *not* itself a philosophy, and it has no claim to being better at informing philosophical positions that does religion.”
Again, I disagree totally and completely because:
“What or Which God”? Becuase all kinds of cultures/tribes/etc have created all kinds of gods/goddesses/spirits to explain natural phenomena such the recommended “Gods in the Sky” or any other books on mythologies. It is interesting that all of the “core” rituals of modern monotheistic religions derived from Anicent Egyptian concepts.
“Describe God”? If “God” can be described, then “God” is testable, verifiable, and evidential (?).
It isn’t that our evolving knowledge fields of the sciences (the best explanations we have) are neutral with regard to the “supernatural” beings or concepts that are all human created, imagined, and pretend, it depends strictly and only with ourselves. The simple matter is that if the “god” you “believe” in exists (exists, again, means it is testable, verifiable, and material), then “IT” is quite capable of being “proven” to exist.
Can we prove a negative–that something does not exist?
Does Santa Claus exist? Does the Tooth Fairy exist? If we are unable to verify Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy exists, then do they not exist? You could state that they are both “supernatural beings” and are miralces when they exist?
October 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
“Gods in the Sky” by Dr Allan Chapman has the tagline “Astronomy from the Ancients to the Renaissance”. Dr Allen Chapman is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and is well regarded in his field. He is also an excellent historian of science.
If you can get hold of a copy of his book it is quite a good read. One of the themes of the book was how religious practices from the ancients to the Catholic church drove and encouraged Astronomy.
There was a time when faith and science were in a symbiotic relationship. It proved that both camps could be in harmony.
October 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Chet said:
“Can we prove a negative–that something does not exist?”
Erm, well, as I understand these things, it is possible to prove a negative, but impossible to prove a positive (except in maths). The evidence of astronomical observations contradict the concept of circular planetary orbits (even with epicycles). Therefore this model is incorrect. Newton’s laws of motion and theory of gravity provide a better model (and Einstein’s general relativity a better still), but I could not prove it to be correct.
Having said that, it is not possible to prove that something does not exist, if by “prove” you mean beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is possible to demonstrate that something has never been observed and does not comply with any of our tried and tested models of how the universe works, and hence to conclude that if such a thing exists it will require us to come up with new, better models of how the universe works (but at the same time that such a thing is unlikely).
But, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Just because a hypothetical thing that I cannot prove to not exist would contradict a model, does not mean the model is wrong. Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In terms of scientific proof for or against the existence of “God”, since any god is considered to be supernatural, our current understanding of the way the universe works offers no means of testing the hypothesis. It could be that there are realms of phenomena that are real but that we have no way of observing or measuring. However, one must use a little pragmatism and say that science cannot answer questions about such things one way or another. This is because science must adopt the assumption of methodological materialism (that is, that we can only reach firm conclusions about phenomena that we are able to observe and hence test in some way).
I think Douglas Adams summed it up best in The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing,” “But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist and so, therefore, you don’t. QED.” “Oh, dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. DA also notes that many leading theologians describe this argument as “a load of dingoes’ kidneys”…
October 29th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Right on, Nigel. And Chet, this is why you can’t use science to disprove the existence of God. How do you know that God did not set up everything in our universe, every molecule, every equation that they obey, just yesterday? How do you know He (or She, or It) didn’t set things up to conceal His (Her, Its) existence, out of some design we know nothing of? It is absolute hubris to make the leap of saying that the assumptions of science (yes, assumptions) are the sole path to truth and enlightenment. It is, however, entirely correct to say that the assumptions of science, and its methods, are the path to scientific enlightenment, which ultimately as a proven place in humanity’s development. Science is all about self-consistency and practicality. If you want to make the jump to philosophy, that is your prerogative, in a free society. But that last part does not belong in classrooms, and there is where religious people actually have a legitimate beef. To ignore that is to arm them, to address it is to leave them grasping at thin air. It does require a more sophisticated understanding of what science is and what it is not. Remember, the “magic bullet” fallacy can also bite the scientific-minded. Science can be used to test the reality of various physical claims, but has no sway over metaphysical ones.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:22 am
Something I always wanted to ask an IDer is that is ‘HE’ still on the job? I mean if you had 1 million fruit flies in a box and changed something in their environment, does the Intelligent Designer look at it and change the fruit fly’s design on the fly (pardon the pun)? Also how do the fruit flies communicate with the ID to ask for a change. Presumably because ID is touted as a scientific theory even the ID cannot break the laws of physics and is restricted to speed of light EM communications. Then again HE might use spooky action at a distance or something.
And Ken is right science does not have all the answers to everything however I think that it is important while teaching kids, science is science and religion is religion. Both are important to humans however so far we are not advanced enough in either so that they are indistinquishable from each other. At our present level of understanding they are seperate disciplines requiring different methods. Confusing them is wrong.
BTW I think that it is a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys. (a dingo being our native dog here in OZ)
October 31st, 2005 at 6:50 am
Much thanks, Nigel and Ken. I appreciate your feedbacks.
It would be marvelously interesting if an extraterrestrial intra-galactic crew would vacation within our solar system within my lifetime.
The Scientifc American article on “ID” can be copied if you go to the end of the artlce, it does have a “print” icon.
The November/December 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer is devoted to the “ID” debate. It is now out in libraries.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:53 am
Addedeum:
“Creation & Intelligent Design Watch” hosted by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal at:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/index.html
October 31st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Useful info Chet, thanks. And I agree with Ender that a key element to ID “theory” must be the question of whether the design forces are still at play today. I think they would say that they are “in principle”, though they could not cite an example “in practice”. If the processes are not at play, it’s a little hard to study how they work, and this is why ID is at best metaphysics, certainly not physics. And if they are at play, where is the body of research on how they work? By the way, any proponent of ID should see the movie Zardoz. The protagonist is the ultimate ID researcher, but I doubt this is exactly the scenario they have in mind!
October 31st, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Ender Says:
Presumably because ID is touted as a scientific theory even the ID cannot break the laws of physics
Now THERE’S a good point! If ID is a science, then the designer it proposes must be subject to scientific laws. Another illustration of how ID confuses the natural and supernatural.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Sam Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
>….
>http://www.highestschool.com/
>(This is just hilarious.)
>
>Anyone have any more?
When I first visited the highestchool site it took me a while to realize it was fictional. Does that make me sound gullible? Well here is a site that is not funny but SCARY, super Halloween scary. Because it is where the graduates of the highest school would continue their education, and it IS real.
http://icr.cybrhost.com/
and
http://articles-icr.org/
These are really the same site, the second being the more recent, but some internet geology searches was how I first encountered the original site. Spend some time looking through these. These are the moving force behind ID. No matter how the subject is slicked over to try and sound moderate and presentable to the masses, ID is a step toward teaching YEC and doing away with hundreds of years of work in all branches of science. A world where all scientific articles and research have conclusions and abstracts that quote the old testament and not experiments or empirical tests.
Notice the presentation of ID is an evolving argument (irony intended). A bit over a year ago when I first started speaking to friends and co-workers (of similar mind) about this notion, ID was in its infancy and was very obviously christian fundamentalist in its presentation. As time has passed and the subject has been debated or come more into the public eye, it has become non-religious and tries to appear less faith based to those uninitiated. “in a deposition taken January 3, 2005, Dover Superintendent Nilsen suggested that the “master intellect” described in an ID textbook might also be an alien.â€? Might be an alien? Yeah and BA might give a public speech on palm reading. ID’s “master intellectâ€? is a fundamentalist christian God, not Buddha or an Alpha Centurion, or Kronos, or Allah. This is why the debates turn into christian bashing so often. At its roots ID is NOT believing in God as a creator, and leaving the rest of the definition up to you as an individual with your own personal faith and scientific learning. ID is in reality at its core biblical literacy that disallows the fundamental basis for all major branches of science.
I am so torn here. On one hand the more the subject is allowed to be debated in public and allowed to evolve, even by saying it MIGHT have a place in say a humanities class or comparative religion the more strength they gain, just by getting public attention. I would like to do as much as possible just to give them NO forum, No debate, NO credence of ANY kind. But they will not go away. So, on the other hand I feel something has to be done, to in every capacity argue against ID, because accepting ID in any form puts us on a very slippery slope.
ID, is the gateway drug to the destruction of science.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:05 pm
I think the key things to debate on is not get bogged down in evolutionary theory however attack scientific aspects of ID such as what is happening now, how the ID communicates etc. Put the onus on the ID person to prove scientific facts.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:43 pm
I would like to think putting the onus on them to prove their points would be enough to keep the subject out of science classes, but as has been happening by evolving their presentation to be more palatable to the scientifically minded, and the less informed public they’re getting more indirect support, by way of folks who say “well why not expose our kids to both sides of an argument?� By keeping it debatable, by arguing in public forum keeps it a viable argument WITH two sides in the public’s eye.
The other problem is the IDers don’t have to prove scientific facts by their standpoint, God said, or God did. That is the end of their argument. Where do WE go from there? Asking them to define God or saying that the designer must follow our scientific laws won’t go. An omnipotent designer by definition of being omnipotent is above and beyond science laws, and thus could be argued beyond our definition to properly define as well.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:23 am
“An omnipotent designer by definition of being omnipotent is above and beyond science laws, and thus could be argued beyond our definition to properly define as well.”
..So therefore ID belongs in religion classes where I have no problem with it being taught. This is where the ID crowd can be trapped into admitting that ID is not really a science.
Either it is a religious idea or it is not. By reading some of the links in previous posts I notice how careful the IDers are to avoid mentioning God. Really to them the ID is a non-specific, cross denominational, asexual sort of all round good thing that helps poor organisms evolve. Has anyone asked what the ID gets out of it???
November 1st, 2005 at 7:44 am
This quote from Hugh’s link says it all:
“Stunning discoveries await those who study God’s creation from a perspective of submission to God’s Word.”
Does that sound like science anyone? Perhaps we should dub it “submission science” instead of creationism.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:30 am
Or maybe “Submissive Design” would be a better name for it.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:23 pm
I have a few observations I’d like to share:
“in a deposition taken January 3, 2005, Dover Superintendent Nilsen suggested that the “master intellect� described in an ID textbook might also be an alien.�
Where did the alien come from? Did he/she/it evolve naturally on their world or were they also designed by another alien. And then, where did that alien come from? And so on, and so on…. I begin to see the infinite reflection of 2 mirrors.
Second, look at who is making the arguments for the IDers, lawyers. What television shows are most popular? I tend to think most people learn their arguments and logic from courtroom dramas. In law, (at least on TV), one little chip in the evidence and the entire case collapses. I’m convinced most people think science works that way too. I firmly believe one of the strongest points to make is that science studies the evidence, hypothitizes, experiments, and pieces together a theory that best explains the evidence and makes future predictions that can also be verified. When contridictory evidence is found, the entire model doesn’t collapse, (well, sometimes that has happened, but I think you know where I am going), the evidence is studied, tested and the model evolves to show a clearer picture. Science isn’t about “Aha! I caught you in a lie!” drama like a courtroom. The more people understand how science really works, the easier it will be for them to understand how non-science doesn’t work.
Lastly, my number one argument for not teaching ID in science class, (aside from it’s not science) is what benifit do the students get from it? The next time ID is discussed at a scool board meeting ask these questions. How will ID help prepare my child for further learning of college courses in biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. What homework will my child have to complete? What school lab classes will my child be involved in relating to ID? What science fair project will be accepted concerning ID? Science teaches one main thing to students: Hypothosize, experiment, duplicate results, theorize. This is the fundemental scientific method. If a science course can’t teach that, then it’s probably not science. Many parents want their children prepared for college. If the answer to every question is “God did it”, what does Suzy learn?
I want my daughter to learn scientific methods, facts, reasons and evidence in science class. Those are the challenges she will face in college and I want her prepared for them.
OK, I think I’ve rambled enough for now,
November 4th, 2005 at 3:46 am
Or another way to make this point, isn’t science class about teaching students what scientists are using science to learn? So if you have a concept of “equal time” for ID, it should more properly be “proportional time”– include it in proportion to the actual amount of science that is being done by ID scientists investigating how ID works. Oh, that’s zilch, OK, well, proportional is proportional…
November 5th, 2005 at 1:35 am
lol! Good one, Ken! That’s about right, too.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:02 am
Well! Guess where I’M not sending my kids to school? Lol…
I just read an article today in my local paper that says that KY is now “considering” adding ID to science classes. Yeah, that’s right, folks; KY suffers from enough bad publicity, let’s just confirm once and for all that we’re a bunch of ignorant, toothless, moonshine swilling idiots. Makes me sick.
Homeschooling is looking better to me all the time!
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Ken G Said:
>Oh and, since I said I agreed, I should also be clear that I do not think one can characterize a religion as being “wrong�. What would that look like, the method for doing that?
First, one can evaluate the factual claims to some degree. Second, and more to the point, one can evaluate the concepts by logic and reasoning. When in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, use the tools available.
> Where does the idea come from that one religion is “right�?
Monotheism. Polytheistic societies tend to be tolerant of other gods, because they already have a bunch of them, what’s another one? They mostly get concerned that you placate all the gods, rather than quibbling over if you’ve added a new one. The more gods the merrier. Monotheism says “Those other gods aren’t the one true god,” and eventually “there are no other gods”. Polytheistic societies will argue that you must placate the gods correctly, though, so there’s still plenty of room for religious wars.
>And why does one have to accept all or none of it?
There’s a word for someone who picks and chooses the parts of the religion he wants to believe – Heretic. Structured religions codify beliefs in creeds, dogma, teachings, etc. Those who don’t teach the “proper” interpretations are almost worse than the mere infidels – they’re the corrupters of God’s Word.
>Does you only go to restaurants where you like *everything* on the menu?
Somehow I don’t think it’s fair to equate religious belief with a menu. Food choices are a matter of taste, of personal preference. Religion is supposed to be “The Truth”. How can you pick and choose “The Truth”?
>Even if you believe that a single religion, out of them all, was actually inspired by the true God, what about misinterpretations in how the inspiration is coming across?
The literalists would cry Blasphemy. The directly inspired Word of God is directed and controlled by him to be flawless. Mere mortals are just the tools He uses to spread his message, surely he wouldn’t let a mere mortal distort His Message? After all, he’s omnipotent.
[/baiting]
November 27th, 2005 at 2:43 am
What is all the panic about? All this breathless moaning and groaning, wailing and mourning over ONE idea, promoted by ONE little institute, going up against the untold legions of Darwinists in this country? NOT ONE university science department, or even ONE high school biology department, controlled by a majority of ID’ers, and yet all we see and hear is ‘the sky is falling’, ‘the Bible-thumpers are coming’!
Get a grip, people. If you really had confidence that you have the truth on your side, then what in the heck are you worried about? Unless, perhaps, you doubt that you have you have the truth…
More likely, the panic is a reflection of more basic instincts. As it is often said, follow the money. I think many Darwinists are worried about the sinecures of their jobs, grants, laboratories, etc. They have a lock on all that funding now, but any new theory poses a dangerous threat to that monopoly, a competitor for those jobs and grants. We all know how hierarchical and competitive the world of academe can be, and the threat of losing money just makes its ugly side worse.
Part of this is also quite obviously one of dogmatic belief, as well. Scientific materialism is now the established religion of our academic elite, and any challenge to it’s basic underpinnings is a threat not to be taken lightly, obviously. In these debates, I’m afraid the Darwinian establishment comes off sounding a lot more like Torquemada than Galileo.
November 28th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Svensun Said:
>What is all the panic about? All this breathless moaning and groaning, wailing and mourning over ONE idea, promoted by ONE little institute, going up against the untold legions of Darwinists in this country? NOT ONE university science department, or even ONE high school biology department, controlled by a majority of ID’ers, and yet all we see and hear is ‘the sky is falling’, ‘the Bible-thumpers are coming’!
Except that it’s not just “ONE idea� promoted by “ONE little institute�. Countering Evolution is only the first stop of the ID proponents on their trip to put christianity into the school curriculum. This particular topic is Evolution, because it has been a hot button topic ever since its introduction, but biology in only the starting point. They’re looking to cosmology (where admittedly there’s more philosophy than science in some respects) and then astronomy, and eventual targets are all the Creationist favorites of radiological dating, geology, etc. And while the major voice of ID is the Discovery Institute, they are gathering support from many sources – among them groups like the ICR and other creationist organizations. They have broad public appeal largely due to an underlying public affinity for the position they are promoting and because of their methods of obscuring their intent behind innocuous sounding “scientific� arguments.
>Get a grip, people. If you really had confidence that you have the truth on your side, then what in the heck are you worried about? Unless, perhaps, you doubt that you have you have the truth…
Or perhaps what we’re worried about is that the decisions are being made not on a scientific level by scientists, but on a political level by school board members and voting publics and elected officials like, say, President Bush. We’re talking about issues affecting us on a social and political level every bit as much as we’re talking about the science behind Evolution and/or ID.
>More likely, the panic is a reflection of more basic instincts. As it is often said, follow the money. I think many Darwinists are worried about the sinecures of their jobs, grants, laboratories, etc. They have a lock on all that funding now, but any new theory poses a dangerous threat to that monopoly, a competitor for those jobs and grants. We all know how hierarchical and competitive the world of academe can be, and the threat of losing money just makes its ugly side worse.
I can’t argue that funding issues affect decisions and motivations, but do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion, or is this just guessing on your part?
>Part of this is also quite obviously one of dogmatic belief, as well. Scientific materialism is now the established religion of our academic elite, and any challenge to it’s basic underpinnings is a threat not to be taken lightly, obviously. In these debates, I’m afraid the Darwinian establishment comes off sounding a lot more like Torquemada than Galileo.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it right. Scientific materialism has one advantage behind it that can’t be said for any alternatives – duplicable accurate results. Everything from automobiles to electric lights to the internet is based upon scientific materialism. Scientific materialism has brought us such advances in medicine as antibiotics, vaccines, insulin therapy for diabetes, and even surgery. If you want to indulge in homeopathic non-medicine, Therapeutic (non)Touch, spinal manipulation to relieve diabetes and cancer, Facilitated (non)Communication, smoking incense, wearing crystals and/or plastic bracelets, e-meter “clearing�, and faith “healing�, you’re welcome to it, too. Me, I like my medicine to be connected to reality. And I like my science to actually work.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Dear Sticks,
It all comes down to this:
Humanity (or at least the more inquiring portion of it) has always tried to figure out the Universe. One of the first and most popular methodologies was something called religion, where the Universe was imagined to be under the control of various deities and their doings, interpreted by a priest-class.
This seemed to work quite well (although with statistical insignificance or negative results) until c. the 1500s, when observational data began to show that many of the occurrences previously attributed to deities could instead be completely explained by the actions of natural forces. Those natural forces could be explained by observed evidence and mathematical processing thereof. In short, they didn’t have to be “believed on ‘faith’”.
As the natural sciences investigated more areas, the “God idea”, a human invention, diminished to the point where it was (thankfully) banished from the arena. Truly natural science had/has no need for invocations of the supernatural.
The current problem is that humanity, for the most part, has no problem accepting the benefits of the new, well-proved scientific methodology, but insists on clinging to its now obsolete religious methodologies.
The sooner we relegate those obsolete, ineffectual, superstition-based religious methodologies to the trash bin, the better off we we will be as a species.