Wired vs. Creationism
Wired takes on the topic of creationism, though Wired is nice enough to call it, and it pains me to type this, intelligent design.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
About
Minimum Safe Distance is a coöperative blogging endeavor. The hope is to bring new ideas, spirited argument, and intellectual passion to our readers on a daily basis.
We hope to push you out of your comfort zone and into your thinking zone.
Feel encouraged to disagree with us. We're grown, we can take it.
Previous Posts
- Nerd voting.
- Lawyers
- Why do people like George W. Bush?
- Sarah McLachlan Video
- GO STEWART!!! (not Martha!!)
- Welcome to the United States of Afghanistan...
- Hey pirate boy!!
- Pirate Stuff
- The ONLY good thing to come from TypefaceMemoKerni...
- World O' Crap
Friends of M.S.D.
14 Comments:
G.H.,
I think it is not a nicety that WIRED calls it "Intelligent Design" (because, after all they make it clear that it's creationism), but a service. By using the terminology that the creationists use in their attempt to sneak their mythology into science curricula, WIRED is helping its readers to be alert to such attempts in their own community school board meetings and the like.
What the creationists rely on is widespread public ignorance about the fundamentals of science--what a scientific theory is, what role testable hypotheses play in science, and why belief structures like "creationism" and "intelligent design" are not, and cannot be, scientific theories.
I cannot tell you how many generally intelligent, educated people say "but they are both theories" when referring to evolution and creationism. This has been the best strategy of creationists--to press the idea that they are both scientific theories, when, in fact, creationism is not. Most people lack the basic understanding of the scientific method to recognize the creationist's lie--and so their agenda advances.
Why is that comment referred to me?
BUT, taking the soapbox...
This is a lot more complicated an issue than I would like it to be. I always say that G-d and I are not on speaking terms... he stays out of my house, I stay out of his. This recognizes the probable existence of such an entity, but denies that I allow such probability to affect my life. I don't want to be bailed out by a higher power.
My father studied to be a rabbi, but did not become a rev (rabbi with a congregation) at least in part because he asked how the holocaust could have happened if we were being watched over.
I told you all of that so I could say this: The purpose of the religious clauses of the constitution are such that religion should be beyond public debate. The problem is that, if you are religious, non-religion is contrary to your faith. Can you imagine if we were to teach creation in schools when you really believed evolution was true? Imagine the reverse, and that's what we've got. The problem is that you have to teach something. I think that a class period indicating that some people disagree with evolution, essentially a philosophy session in a science class, isn't such a bad thing. Not that I would push for it, because again, I think that religion is for private debate, not public debate.
Finally, don't you ever get the feeling that there are things that happen other than by chance? Science fails to explain such things. I'm not sure there is an intelligent higher power, but it really does seem to me that our science doesn't cover everything. Maybe someday it will.
G.H.,
Two comments:
First, while you could have "a class period indicating that some people disagree with evolution, essentially a philosophy session in a science class," if creationism is to be represented, then you really have a religion session in a science class. That is OK constitutionally, I think, but may be better to have such a session as part of a religion class (which you can have in a public school fairly easily, as long as it is not promoting a particular religion, nor mandatory). In either case, it should be made clear that "creationism" or "I.D." is not a scientific system of beliefs, but a religious one, and one that cannot be validated using the scientific method because it is not (to use the Popperian language) falsifiable.
Second, you ask "don't you ever get the feeling that there are things that happen other than by chance?" Well, nearly everything that appears to have a clear causal mechanism (say, all Newtonian physical behaviors)doesn't seem to happen by chance, but by some identifiable cause.
I think what you meant was, "don't you think that things happen in your life that would seem to be chance or coincidence, but in fact feel like something more--perhaps part of a larger plan, or something else like that."
I, in fact, don't ever get the feeling that there are those kind of things that happen other than by chance. While I am subject to irrational and magical thinking in an entire other host of areas, this is not one of them.
I don't deny that science currently fails to satisfactorily explain a number of phenomena and events, but I would argue that the scientific method is our best method for understanding ourselves and our world that we have developed to date. Will it eventually explain everything in such a way that we can understand it? I doubt it. Does that mean that there is an intelligent higher power? I have yet to see evidence of that, but I'm open to persuasion (primarily by the kind of evidence that would satisfy the scientific method).
What if evolution has already determined the winner of the great natural selection game, and this entity is the Intelligence behind ID? Might that not allow for both theories to have merit where the opposing theory is not actively at work? "The winner" might have evolution in effect where it isn't choosing to focus, and may be screwing shit all up where it is choosign to focus.
I am not nearly this much of a creationist, but I don't like the idea of dismissing someone else's faith in higher power based on my faith in science. Both involve faith. Mine may be more objectively justifiable, but theirs may be at least as decisive and heartfelt. Particularly if they're as wacko as they usually are...
G.H.,
Please don't misunderstand my objection.
I note your statement:
"I don't like the idea of dismissing someone else's faith in higher power based on my faith in science. Both involve faith. Mine may be more objectively justifiable, but theirs may be at least as decisive and heartfelt."
Let me say, that for my part, I don't dismiss anyone else's faith in a higher power, nor would I seek to supplant such beliefs with a belief in science. [Let's assume everyone else has read Hume's critique of inductive logic, etc., and will essentially concur that science involves that as-yet-unproven principle.]
I would make a couple of points. First, the use of the word "faith" in these contexts is somewhat slippery, and may, for all real and practicable purposes, refer to two entirely different things. Second, that while science may involve a "belief" in induction, that is a belief that is constantly available for invalidation--and yet is affirmed each day as the sun rises or as an apple falls to earth. What other belief system can say the same? (The major religions, in practice, are rarely set up to be falsifiable, and when they are set up that way, they are usually invalidated.)
My specific objection to "intelligent design" is that the ID folks seek to cloak a specific religious vision in pseudo-scientific language for the purposes of advancing a religious agenda towards children who are compelled by law to attend school. The folks who believe in ID are entitled to do so, and I will vigorously defend their right to believe such things--I just won't let them present those beliefs in a public school masquerading as science.
A very good resource on intelligent design is hosted by the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion.
Use http://tinyurl.com/6rshe to get you there.
Mal, the reason it pains me to type it is because I feel the phrase itself is an affront to the scientific community.
GH, my problem with your statement, "The problem is that, if you are religious, non-religion is contrary to your faith. Can you imagine if we were to teach creation in schools when you really believed evolution was true? Imagine the reverse, and that's what we've got." is that creationism is not just an argument for religion over non-religion. It's an argument for fundamentalist xtian religion over other religions and non-religion. It's not as if creationists are advocating for any intelligent designer; they're only advocating for theirs.
I can imagine the uproar if we allowed their creationist science classes but insisted on calling the creator Allah or Spuds McKenzie. They are pushing for a partisan religious agenda. This only has to do with introducing alternate theories insofar as it serves to convert young'uns into god's army.
A Religions of the Worlds course would be helpful, as the Mal suggested. My Religions of the World course in my Catholic high school was my first step toward atheism, while it strengthened other's beliefs in their religions (Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism).
Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all left the class with a greater sense of why we shouldn't assume our religion onto others, and instead let folks come to a religion or nonreligion as they saw necessary in their lives. Otherwise, let the natural world persist unimpeded.
ACW, G.H.,
My apologies--I addressed my initial post on this issue to G.H. apparently because I'm an idiot. (This is what happens when you have 1,259,621 windows open, and are blogging while simultaneously drinking coffee.)
The scientific community is hip to the I.D. folks. It wouldn't be the first time people have co-opted scientific-sounding language to promote an agenda, and it won't be the last.
No apologies necessary. I'm just feeling prickly.
V.A.,
Bite me, you trash-talking chickenfucker.
Direct enough for you?
I, for one, don't think I'm being overly sensitive or wishy-washy. I think the I.D. "argument" is moronic and easily pulled apart by anyone with a brain. I don't respect their opinion, though like the fanatical constitutionalist I am, I will fight for their right to believe any kind of crack-headed bullshit they desire.
I don't expect the same degree of respect from the I.D. proponents, and I think less of them for it--in fact, the core issue I take with them is that they don't respect other peoples' right to believe differently from themselves. I won't let them push me into their game (nor you either).
This is not the first time Americans have faced such idiocy, nor will it be the last, and I don't see the need to get whipped into a frenzy just because my opponents are.
At the core of this, I'm just a Jeffersonian. Jefferson said "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Reason easily defeats I.D. I'm not inclined to give an inch, and they won't get to take that foot. I don't fear the I.D. people, I pity them for their closeminded, frightened worldview.
At least a couple of regulars to this blog are gay, so I'll let them take you to school for it if they feel the need.
And the only part of your response that really raised my hackles was your filthy insinuation that I'm a democrat. Don't make me take this outside.
Smooches,
The Mal.
Mal,
I think this statement from you:
"This is not the first time Americans have faced such idiocy, nor will it be the last, and I don't see the need to get whipped into a frenzy just because my opponents are."
is at the core of why VA is calling us a "gay support group." (Though I'm not sure if VA meant a support group FOR gay people, or a support group that is attracted to other support groups of the same gender.) I believe VA thinks we need to be proactive i.e. getting whipped into a frenzy at stamping out idiocy (because they're already frenzied) instead of waiting for idiocy to rear it's head. I'm all for a pro-active approach, except for me it treads too nearly to the limiting, and eventual extinguishing of the liberty of free speech.
ACW,
Well, let's dig down on that, shall we? Among the things I have done in my non-blog persona to combat I.D.: 1) directly funded groups working to combat the introduction of I.D. to science curricula in 4 states; 2) provided background help to an author of an op-ed piece against I.D. that ran in several national newspapers; 3) spent past several years working for an organization that solely exists to support the scienific enterprise; and 4) stood up and argued with an I.D. advocate in a very public forum.
In addition, I have vociferously argued against I.D. among friends and acquaintances who support or treat I.D. as equivalent to science (yes, ACW, including beating down your friend who uses two "L"s in his name when one would do, and who said in regards to evolution and I.D. "I think they should teach both in biology class--I mean, they are both theories.")
I think that's at least passably proactive, but doesn't require me attacking the entire institution of religion, the people themselves, or their right to believe those things. To me, that's what would be entailed in a frenzy.
I don't want to fight their right to believe I.D.--just their attempts to try to insert it into school curricula.
Clearly, Mal, the "Double L" you speak of was an unfortunate target of creationisms rhetoric, which is why, I believe, the VA insists we, "kill 'em all and let Darwin sort 'em out."
Mal, the things you have done to combat creationsism are certainly proactive, but not in the same proactive sense as VA seems to suggest. Mal's "proactive" seems to be more passive, while VA's proactivity seems to be more aggressive, in every definition of the word.
VA, would I be going to far to suggest that you want to go into their churches and teach them evolution until they accept it or die attempting to?
...
Post a Comment
<< Home