Friday, July 07, 2006
Intellectual Dishonesty
Not sure exactly why, but I woke up this morning thinking about those 'Intelligent Design' folks and their campaign to undermine education in the United States. Things are hard enough for teachers without outsiders creating false controversies based on simply contradicting the pains-taking work of scientists all over the world. And yet these nay-sayers are a political force, distracting educators from fulfilling their mission and draining school dollars into lawyers' pockets through frivolous lawsuits.
It would be one thing if they honestly believed what they put forth. While privately agreeing on the creation stories found in the book of Genesis, publicly they shroud their real agenda behind a supercilious veil of scientific language and bleatings about 'fair play'. This is the famous Wedge Strategy through which these fanatical ideologues hope to take control of the nation.
If any further evidence of evolution is needed, just look at how the just plain Creationism of Scopes Trial fame evolved into Creation Science, and when that was revealed to be nothing more than simple Creationism in Scientific clothing, evolved yet again into Intelligent Design in an effort to trick people into thinking it wasn't Creationism at all. Though a fascinating example of protective camoflage, no one was fooled.
But this won't stop the Culture Warriors who wage a never-ending battle against Reality. After all, this is their bread and butter. These guys raise millions of dollars from their sadly misled followers in an uphill battle against common sense. And what easier job than to simply sit at one's keyboard and simply contradict the hard-won facts of science? You never even have to look out your window to be a Creation Scientist! After all, everything you need to know is in your handy Bible.
These pious frauds are always looking for a way to make a buck without breaking a sweat, and sadly, they'll always find suckers to support them.
It would be one thing if they honestly believed what they put forth. While privately agreeing on the creation stories found in the book of Genesis, publicly they shroud their real agenda behind a supercilious veil of scientific language and bleatings about 'fair play'. This is the famous Wedge Strategy through which these fanatical ideologues hope to take control of the nation.
If any further evidence of evolution is needed, just look at how the just plain Creationism of Scopes Trial fame evolved into Creation Science, and when that was revealed to be nothing more than simple Creationism in Scientific clothing, evolved yet again into Intelligent Design in an effort to trick people into thinking it wasn't Creationism at all. Though a fascinating example of protective camoflage, no one was fooled.
But this won't stop the Culture Warriors who wage a never-ending battle against Reality. After all, this is their bread and butter. These guys raise millions of dollars from their sadly misled followers in an uphill battle against common sense. And what easier job than to simply sit at one's keyboard and simply contradict the hard-won facts of science? You never even have to look out your window to be a Creation Scientist! After all, everything you need to know is in your handy Bible.
These pious frauds are always looking for a way to make a buck without breaking a sweat, and sadly, they'll always find suckers to support them.
# posted by newbie @ 5:47 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Whenever so called "Intelligent Design" comes up, I think of Galileo. The Church put Galileo under house arrest for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun. That's exactly what religious ideologists are trying to do right now with regard to biology.
Evolution is indeed a theory, but so is gravity -- it's called the "gravitational theory" and as recently as 20 years ago the "laws" of gravity were changed because of new scientific observations.
Chemistry and the atom are also theories, and actually they are on less stable ground that most people know. The particle theory off matter starts falling apart when you get into high level physics ... it's the problem about the cat in the box.
Science is making observations, postulating a cause and effect relationship, and testing that hypothesis. As new information becomes available, the hypothesis must be retested -- that's why scientific explanations are "theories" and not "truths."
The only real truths are the observed data -- and that has to be documented clearly and carefully.
Galileo was considered offensive because his observations contradicted the Church's statement that the man was God's most important creation. God loves man above all other creations, God created the universe around man, so the universe must revolve around the Earth where man lives.
Biological science is doing the same thing. By denying evolution, religious ideologists are desperately clinging to the notion that man is the most important biological creation in the universe. The idea that the universe does not revolve around man, and that man is no more or no less important than anything else in the universe, scares the crap out of them.
Evolution is indeed a theory, but so is gravity -- it's called the "gravitational theory" and as recently as 20 years ago the "laws" of gravity were changed because of new scientific observations.
Chemistry and the atom are also theories, and actually they are on less stable ground that most people know. The particle theory off matter starts falling apart when you get into high level physics ... it's the problem about the cat in the box.
Science is making observations, postulating a cause and effect relationship, and testing that hypothesis. As new information becomes available, the hypothesis must be retested -- that's why scientific explanations are "theories" and not "truths."
The only real truths are the observed data -- and that has to be documented clearly and carefully.
Galileo was considered offensive because his observations contradicted the Church's statement that the man was God's most important creation. God loves man above all other creations, God created the universe around man, so the universe must revolve around the Earth where man lives.
Biological science is doing the same thing. By denying evolution, religious ideologists are desperately clinging to the notion that man is the most important biological creation in the universe. The idea that the universe does not revolve around man, and that man is no more or no less important than anything else in the universe, scares the crap out of them.
# posted by 
: 1:06 AM
: 1:06 AM
Welcome, Newbie, to the "blogosphere." I am new as well, from the other side of the political spectrum.
I am a little curious how you and Jim can be so down on Intelligent Design when it is so logical and obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence. And to characterize dedicated scientists who accept the Bible as con-artists is downright dishonest in and of itself.
I somewhat doubt if you have even read any of the research that you seem to think is useless. Are you aware that more and more secular scientists are doubting Darwin's approach, if not evolution as commonly taught?
Consider "information technology" and then think DNA. Can anything useful come from raw data without a program? The whole plan for life is within the DNA. In each generation, in its restructuring, some information is LOST, not gained. All the dogs in the world descended from wolves and/or dingos. Much was lost on the way to a chihuahua. The key was Extra information, not "new" information.
I am a little curious how you and Jim can be so down on Intelligent Design when it is so logical and obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence. And to characterize dedicated scientists who accept the Bible as con-artists is downright dishonest in and of itself.
I somewhat doubt if you have even read any of the research that you seem to think is useless. Are you aware that more and more secular scientists are doubting Darwin's approach, if not evolution as commonly taught?
Consider "information technology" and then think DNA. Can anything useful come from raw data without a program? The whole plan for life is within the DNA. In each generation, in its restructuring, some information is LOST, not gained. All the dogs in the world descended from wolves and/or dingos. Much was lost on the way to a chihuahua. The key was Extra information, not "new" information.
Well, perhaps it would be ungenerous to characterize the 'theory' of Intelligent Design itself as intellectually dishonest. Perhaps it wasn't clear that it is the presentation of religious dogma as being scientifically based that roused my ire. That's what the whole Wedge document was about.
There's nothing wrong with believing in Creation in six days a few thousand years ago. Just don't call it science. Why do Creationists want to steal the prestige real science has won through its many acheivements by hard work? Aren't they happy with their own field?
Time and again it has been demonstrated that Creationism and Creation Science and now Intelligent Design (however you wish to name it) is nothing more than an attempt to portray Revelation as something derived from Reason instead. They start with their conclusion and work backwards toward the facts.
If the proponents of ID wish to compete with evolutionary theory, they have quite a bit of catching up to do, as evolution has so much successful research on the books. As far as I'm aware evidence in support for ID is rarely found in reputable scientific journals.
The information technology analogy may be persuasive to some, but I do note that something abstract created by human beings should be treated as a different class than dynamic living beings.
It's true I haven't read everything being put forth by the various defenders of Bible-based 'science.' However I have watched the debate with interest.
When it comes to plumbing I'll listen to a plumber not a preacher, and medicine a doctor not a deacon. I'll pay more heed to scientists when it comes to science than I will any number of theologians.
There's nothing wrong with believing in Creation in six days a few thousand years ago. Just don't call it science. Why do Creationists want to steal the prestige real science has won through its many acheivements by hard work? Aren't they happy with their own field?
Time and again it has been demonstrated that Creationism and Creation Science and now Intelligent Design (however you wish to name it) is nothing more than an attempt to portray Revelation as something derived from Reason instead. They start with their conclusion and work backwards toward the facts.
If the proponents of ID wish to compete with evolutionary theory, they have quite a bit of catching up to do, as evolution has so much successful research on the books. As far as I'm aware evidence in support for ID is rarely found in reputable scientific journals.
The information technology analogy may be persuasive to some, but I do note that something abstract created by human beings should be treated as a different class than dynamic living beings.
It's true I haven't read everything being put forth by the various defenders of Bible-based 'science.' However I have watched the debate with interest.
When it comes to plumbing I'll listen to a plumber not a preacher, and medicine a doctor not a deacon. I'll pay more heed to scientists when it comes to science than I will any number of theologians.
You wrote:
"If the proponents of ID wish to compete with evolutionary theory, they have quite a bit of catching up to do, as evolution has so much successful research on the books. As far as I'm aware evidence in support for ID is rarely found in reputable scientific journals."
The problem is, "reputable scientific journals" are a stacked deck. If anyone dares question evolution, or mention the divine, they are more or less blackballed.
Arguments from design predate evolution by millennia. Nowadays,
evidence for design is readily available in the journals. The problem is, it cannot be attributed to anything but random chance. Otherwise, it is not "science."
True scientists, who only later came to believe in God, have devoted their life to displaying their interpretation of the facts. The SAME facts, with different interpretations. To disregard all the actual research as only "faith," and thus somehow fraudulent is to do an injustice to that research. Presupposition is the bedrock to science -- you have to start somewhere.
Most of modern science, such as classic physics (Newton) and Medicine (Pasteur), was pioneered by "creationists." On the other hand, Charles Darwin had flunked out of medical school and thrived in the realm of the theoretical and philosophical. His "science" was mere observation as a "naturist." He could not prove anything, but only describe what he saw. He chose to reject the arguments of divine design in favor of naturalistic explanations.
It is fine for you to put your faith in science as you define it, but it is a false dichotomy to insist that MY faith is opposed to that science. I do not disavow the knowledge we can get from observation, but I chose to believe it is NOT the product of chance (randomness, chaos) plus time.
Post a Comment
"If the proponents of ID wish to compete with evolutionary theory, they have quite a bit of catching up to do, as evolution has so much successful research on the books. As far as I'm aware evidence in support for ID is rarely found in reputable scientific journals."
The problem is, "reputable scientific journals" are a stacked deck. If anyone dares question evolution, or mention the divine, they are more or less blackballed.
Arguments from design predate evolution by millennia. Nowadays,
evidence for design is readily available in the journals. The problem is, it cannot be attributed to anything but random chance. Otherwise, it is not "science."
True scientists, who only later came to believe in God, have devoted their life to displaying their interpretation of the facts. The SAME facts, with different interpretations. To disregard all the actual research as only "faith," and thus somehow fraudulent is to do an injustice to that research. Presupposition is the bedrock to science -- you have to start somewhere.
Most of modern science, such as classic physics (Newton) and Medicine (Pasteur), was pioneered by "creationists." On the other hand, Charles Darwin had flunked out of medical school and thrived in the realm of the theoretical and philosophical. His "science" was mere observation as a "naturist." He could not prove anything, but only describe what he saw. He chose to reject the arguments of divine design in favor of naturalistic explanations.
It is fine for you to put your faith in science as you define it, but it is a false dichotomy to insist that MY faith is opposed to that science. I do not disavow the knowledge we can get from observation, but I chose to believe it is NOT the product of chance (randomness, chaos) plus time.
<< Home
