Watch very closely what is happening in the debate over evolution. Proponents of “Intelligent Design” (ID) insist they just want discussion; they want open-mindedness. Right. Anyone who believes Duhbya when he says it’s good to ask questions has never seen him at a press conference. His mind is made up — he wants YOU to question YOUR beliefs and realize his are the right ones.
ID is simply the latest facet of the culture war, the war being waged by Reactionaries against the rest of us. Don’t trust the media. Don’t trust the government. Don’t trust the courts. Don’t trust the teachers. Trust God and his chosen spokesmen. Believe completely what you are told by these few and no others.
Science is a path and a discipline. The term “pseudo-science” is sometimes applied to ID, but ID is, in fact, anti-science. ID says science CANNOT EVER explain the complexities of life. ID doesn’t just say evolution has so far failed to explain things — science can NEVER explain certain things. Accepting that means accepting that when you reach the limits of whatever you don’t yet understand, you cannot move beyond those limits. God starts at the edge of your ignorance. Under that view, the more ignorant you are, the closer you are to god.
I have a proposal to any proponent of ID. I will allow the possibility there was something divine involved at some point in the development of the Universe IF you will allow the possibility that there never, ever was a god and religion might be full of nonsense. We might both be correct. Fair enough? mjh
ABQjournal: From UNM, 2 Different Views; Biologist, Biochemist Share Their Thoughts By John Fleck, Journal Staff Writer
Intelligent design’s central claim is that living organisms have characteristics too complex to be explained by evolution, where random changes in DNA, survival of the fittest and lots of time are evoked to explain the diversity of life we see today. An unnamed “intelligent designer” must have been involved, the idea’s advocates claim. …
At its heart, the debate is a battle over the definition of science itself.
For more than 300 years, the fundamental goal of science has been to try to find naturalistic explanations for what we see in nature, according to University of New Mexico science historian Timothy Moy.
The resulting scientific method of observation, experiment, hypothesis testing and constant revision of ideas, scientists note, has been remarkably successfully at explaining the natural world and providing the technology that underpins modernity.
Invoking a supernatural being to explain the mysterious, as pre-scientific cultures had done, is not part of that process.
When, for example, physicists struggle with their inability to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, it would never occur to them to invoke a supernatural being and call it solved. “That would not be a scientific argument,” Moy said. …
One of the problems driving the debate, according to Moy, is that science is so esteemed in modern society that everyone wants its stamp of approval for their body of knowledge.
I was stunned by that last assertion. If Moy really believes that, he is stunningly out of touch with America. We believe in God and the Devil and that both take a personal interest in our daily lives. We believe the Bible is literally true. We believe the Founders were Christian zealots. We believe Jesus rode dinosaurs. We believe Indiana Jones was a great archaeologist and Jurassic Park is coming soon. We believe Magic is more powerful than Science. mjh
ABQjournal: Intelligent Design Evidence Ignored By Paul Veers, Engineer
Intelligent design is neither bad science nor stealth creationism. It is a means of setting up mathematically verifiable tests for chance, necessity, or a third possibility, design.
If design is found, it could well raise the issue of its source. The ensuing discussion about the possibility of a creator is a separate issue to be dealt with outside the realm of science.
But it appears from the vehemence of the attacks against intelligent design that the scientific establishment intends to squelch even the possibility of following the evidence wherever it might lead.
Veers is so out-of-touch with the majority of ID supporters it is unreal. mjh
Penguins, People and a Grisly Bear Tale By George F. Will
“March of the Penguins” raises this question: If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins? The movie documents the 70-mile march of thousands of Antarctic penguins from the sea to an icy breeding place barren of nutrition. These perhaps intelligently but certainly oddly designed birds march because they cannot fly. They cannot even march well, being most at home in the sea. …
But the penguins are made for that behavior in that place. What made them? Adaptive evolution. They have been “designed” for all that rigor — meaning they have been shaped by adapting to many millennia of nature’s harshness. …
Reality’s swirling complexity is sometimes lovely, sometime brutal; its laws propel the comings and goings of life forms in processes as impersonal as Antarctica is to the penguins ….. It is so grand that nothing is gained by dragging an Intelligent Designer into the picture for praise. Or blame.
Like Will, whom I seldom agree with, I thought a great deal about Intelligent Design during March of the Penguins, which is hardly scientific in its approach. If there was a designer of penguins, he was cruel and sadistic. mjh
ABQjournal: Theologians In Conflict Over Controversy By Paul Logan, Journal Staff Writer
“I would certainly have to say we don’t take the Book of Genesis literally — that God made the world in six days,” Sheehan said. “It’s a religious teaching and not a scientific teaching that Genesis gives.” …
There is a concern that the cardinal’s article could move the church away from evolution theory and toward intelligent design, he said.
Pope John Paul II spoke on evolution several times. In a 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said:
“New knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis … The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”
“To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution … ”
Some scientists consider intelligent design a thinly disguised version of creationism. Thomas called it “creationism in a lab coat.” …
“The Roman Catholic Church does not accept Scripture literally,” Rev. Andy Pavlak, a Dominican priest, said.
I can’t wait to see evangelicals attack Catholics as lacking faith. I wonder if Catholics will ever regret joining forces with the Bible Literalists like our President. mjh
PS: the title of this entry (“Born OK the First Time”) was reported to me by friends who saw it on a bumper sticker.
Religion – RELIGION TODAY: Among influential American evangelicals, a sense of persecution persists – sacbee.comBy RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
To outsiders, conservative Christians seem at the peak of their influence.
Books by evangelical pastors Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are multimillion best sellers, megachurches are building satellite congregations to meet demand, conservatives control Congress and, most importantly, religious activists helped put a Bible-believer in the White House.
Yet, many evangelicals still consider themselves a persecuted majority, hounded by “secular fundamentalists” intent on driving religion from public life.
Opponents find this view baffling. Bill Leonard, dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School in North Carolina and a critic of the religious right, says evangelicals consider themselves oppressed only because some Americans disagree with them.
“They want to be culture dominant,” Leonard said. …
The sense of being outsiders has historical roots as well. For much of the 20th century, liberal-leaning Protestants were considered the mainstream of American Christianity, while biblical traditionalists were generally marginalized and often mocked.
Starting around the 1960s, as mainline Protestant denominations started losing members, conservative churches were growing, yet evangelicals still felt shut out. A new emphasis on personal freedoms was pushing organized religion to the sidelines of public life.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting abortion-rights and prohibiting public school officials from organizing or leading prayers and devotional Bible reading were also part of this troubling shift for evangelicals….
Behind the conflict about religion in public life is a debate within Christianity itself over how the Bible should be interpreted and which view should be considered the norm. Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, warned recently that Christianity is experiencing a “global identity crisis.”
Gibbs said conservative Christians need to accept that they live in a nation that is becoming ever more diverse, and that no single Christian group will have a “privileged voice” in society.
“You’ve got to find ways of being heard within that context,” Gibbs said. “But we shouldn’t get angry or try to reclaim the past.”