Update: Crusader Language
I would like to update my casual investigation into the use of overtly religious Crusader language by anti-evolutionists about Darwinism and its proponents. I think this is an interesting area to explore in more depth (although obviously I haven't really got time to do that since I am supposed to be working on this little thing called my thesis, a.k.a. dissertation).
Here are some egregious examples from that bastion of intellectualism The American Spectator.
While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist [Behe]. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.
Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency?
Let me refer interested readers to a previous post, where I try to make the distinction between "evolution" and "God". There is almost no point dissecting the obvious ignorance of the last three sentences, which completely miss the point of what "natural selection" means. Perhaps this is the fault of the word "selection", which reminds one of picking the nicest oranges from the bin, rather than the effect of natural (rather than supernatural) pressures on the viability of various organisms.
. . . the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would question these omniscient scientists.
Whereby scientists become priests, or worse, false prophets?
*****
A few more examples, just to drive my point home.
from The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture
Darwin's Critics Are No Bigots, in Contrast to Certain Darwinists
By: Giuseppe Sermonti
October 19, 2005
Yet, in the small nation of Italy, when, a few years ago, [Letizia Brichetto Arnaboldi] Moratti [then minister of education] dared to propose a change in the teaching of evolution, there was an academic and popular uprising, a commission of respected citizens was named, and it was decided that the teaching of the scientific perspective (ergo Darwinian) should be imparted as soon as possible and should be monocultural, as a secular bible, as a catechism for children.
from Science's New Heresy Trial
by Gene Edward Vieth
A Smithsonian-backed editor is defrocked by the priesthood of science for publishing an article on Intelligent Design.
I will give one thing to William Dembski, which is that he refrains from this kind of language. Well, bravo William Dembski. Based on the content of his writing, though, he still promotes a very obviously religious, anti-materialist agenda:
Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the
complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the
God of any religious faith or philosophical system. The task for the Christian who accepts
intelligent design is therefore to formulate a theology of nature and creation that makes sense of intelligent design in light of one’s Christian faith.
Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of
Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God.
Here are some egregious examples from that bastion of intellectualism The American Spectator.
While neither Rosin nor Goodstein are up to the task of explaining evolutionary theory convincingly, they do realize the sacred duty of stopping this scientist [Behe]. He's wandered much too far on to the Darwinists' turf.
Garbling the elite's dogmatic schema, Goodstein, in the Wednesday edition of the Times, had Behe challenging the "Darwinian theory of random natural selection." Random natural selection? No, no, Ms. Goodstein, nature selects not randomly but necessarily, choosing random mutations that happen to prove useful, under Darwin's theory. What is nature? And how does it choose with such incredible precision and marvelous efficiency?
Let me refer interested readers to a previous post, where I try to make the distinction between "evolution" and "God". There is almost no point dissecting the obvious ignorance of the last three sentences, which completely miss the point of what "natural selection" means. Perhaps this is the fault of the word "selection", which reminds one of picking the nicest oranges from the bin, rather than the effect of natural (rather than supernatural) pressures on the viability of various organisms.
. . . the elite's favorite argument for evolutionary theory: the scientific establishment says it is so and no reasonable person would question these omniscient scientists.
Whereby scientists become priests, or worse, false prophets?
*****
A few more examples, just to drive my point home.
from The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture
Darwin's Critics Are No Bigots, in Contrast to Certain Darwinists
By: Giuseppe Sermonti
October 19, 2005
Yet, in the small nation of Italy, when, a few years ago, [Letizia Brichetto Arnaboldi] Moratti [then minister of education] dared to propose a change in the teaching of evolution, there was an academic and popular uprising, a commission of respected citizens was named, and it was decided that the teaching of the scientific perspective (ergo Darwinian) should be imparted as soon as possible and should be monocultural, as a secular bible, as a catechism for children.
from Science's New Heresy Trial
by Gene Edward Vieth
A Smithsonian-backed editor is defrocked by the priesthood of science for publishing an article on Intelligent Design.
I will give one thing to William Dembski, which is that he refrains from this kind of language. Well, bravo William Dembski. Based on the content of his writing, though, he still promotes a very obviously religious, anti-materialist agenda:
Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the
complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the
God of any religious faith or philosophical system. The task for the Christian who accepts
intelligent design is therefore to formulate a theology of nature and creation that makes sense of intelligent design in light of one’s Christian faith.
Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of
Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God.
posted by Joolya at
6:25 PM
12 Comments:
Very nice. Between this, my post on the article and your comments I think we've got the workings of a regular novel. Now, can we get it printed and bound, find the guy that wrote the original article and throw it at him? (A fifteen pound book should be sufficiently painful to keep him out of work for a while)
:)
"Who is the designer? As a Christian I hold that the Christian God is the ultimate source of design behind the universe (though this leaves open that God works through secondary causes, including derived intelligences). But there's no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion. Such inferences are compatible with Christian belief but do not entail it. Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory. Intelligent design in not creationism and it is not naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design is a third way."
- William Dembski, The Design Revolution. pg. 26-27
"there's no way for design inferences from physics or biology to reach that conclusion."
He makes my point for me. But:
"Far from being coy or deceitful, when design theorists do not bring up God, it is because they are staying within the proper scope of their theory."
Would Dembski be willing to concede that anything other than God were the designer? Would he, or ID proponents, admit "evidence" that could be interpreted from a non-Christian viewpoint as valid? I doubt it.
Anyway, this is a specious argument, because reference to any ultimate designer can only mean a God, whether that means the Christian idea of God or otherwise.
What the Wedge document and other documents show is that there is a primarily religious - and by religious I mean Christian in particular - agenda, which is the larger struggle against materialism and attempts to redefine "science" in theistic - or at least non-materialist - terms.
If ID were in any way supported by scientific evidence, or if materialism had failed in the last 200 years to quite accurately and predictable describe the natural world, I would be willing to give it more serious attention. However, neither of these things are so and the stirred up "controversy" is so blatantly an attempt to shove someone else's religious mores on society.
ID IS creationism redux, and for the reasons just stated has no place in scientific discussion. Philosophical, maybe, but certainly not in the natural sciences.
As to your assumptions about Dembski:
"Intelligent design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not an evangelical Christian thing, or a generically Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intellignece in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design. In my experience such friends have included Buddhists, Hindus, New Age thinkers, Jungians, parapsychologists, vitalists, Platonists and honest agnostics, to name but a few."
- William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 25
I suggest you familiarize yourself with a person before you make assumptions about him or her.
However, you are correct about the challenge to naturalism, but not in the way you think. You think that ID theorists wish to do away with laboratory work altogether. You seem to suggest that observation of the natural world is rendered useless by ID. That is far from the case, considering ID was first posited because people were observing the natural world. What ID is challenging is the idea that everything we observe is unaffected by non-physical means. For instance, if you believe that the mind is simply a mechanism acting out only what is pre-determined by it's physical makeup, then you would look at a clearly designed object such as a computer and say, "That is the natural, logical, predictable outcome of nature. If we had a complete understanding of the natural laws then we could have predicted the construction of it." However, if you believe there is such a thing as free will and choice, then you believe in something that is not subject to natural laws. Therefore you would look at a computer and say, "That is the outcome of design by an intelligence and it's construction was not pre-ordained by natural laws. The most likely candidate for the designer is Dell." The first sentence is something ID claims is within the reach of science. The second is not. If you wish to examine how ID goes about trying to detect design by an intelligence as opposed to something that is not designed, then I recommend you start here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/1998.10.science_and_design.htm
If you are not interested in the details of ID theory than don't criticize that which you don't understand. A very good site that scientists are actually discussing very technical issues is http://www.iscid.org
Join the message board there and you will find some very interesting scientific discussions where dissent is welcome and appreciated, unlike the scientific establishment in this country.
If you wish to examine the philosophical view more closely, the best book I have found on the subject is called "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch. If you think that science and philosophy are completely seperated than you are denying the legitimacy of the recognized field of philosophy of science. I just took a philosophy of science course at my university. Del Ratzsch is the chair of the philosophy department of Calvin College. And if you want to say that he doesn't count because he works at a Christian college, then I say it's because of people like you that he doesn't work at a public university. And I would read his book before you start assuming things about his views, otherwise you will misunderstand him just as you misunderstood Dembski.
I admit that there are people who wish to shove their "religious mores on society." I would stand with you against those people. And as stupid crass people tend to outnumber intelligent respectful ones, I suggest that you and I should be allies when it comes to protecting our society from fanatics. And I could show you numerous examples of fanatics from your side of the aisle as well. Don't get me started on that one.
Sorry for the add-on, but more specifically:
Social Darwinism
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
And that's only the beginning.
Please don't lump me in with eugenicists. There are more than two sides of this particular aisle. Social Darwinism is a perversion of science - using natural science to justify racist and oppressive policies. See The Bell Curve for a more recent example of misuse. I don't think we need to bring Hitler into this, as the Nazi philosophy was hardly materialistic. The "Aryan race" was supposed to have been the favorite of God - Nazism was hardly an atheistic movement!
What I find thoroughly distasteful, no matter who is doing it, is the need for tribes, faiths, and humans in general to validate their Specialness, their centrality to creation. Asserting that one's group are the chosen people, or one's nation is the favored nation, or one's faith is the true faith all seem to stem from the same not very nice human tribal impulse.
Similarly, the stance that humans must have been created specially, in the image of some designer, and at the pinnacle of creation, smacks of the same chauvanism. Do we need to be God's most special people in order to be nice to one another? Do we have to be as children who behave out of fear of some divine governess?
I think we, as self-conscious beings - however that came about - have the ability to decide how we want to behave and treat others. Call this free will. I think there is a huge danger inherent in basing one's moral code on the Bible, though. Please hear me out. I don't think this because I disagree with the ten commandments or the golden rule.
If you base your worth and your moral code on the Bible, and some of the stories in the Bible turn out not to be true (e.g. the whole Creation shebang - metaphor and mythology), then there is the problem of your worth and morals being invalidated as well. As there are so many faiths and myths in the world, it is highly highly unlikely that any of them are "correct" - as such. That's why you run into problems tyring to comprehend that humans, turtles, and molluscs are descended from a common ancestor. Because then you're like, Oh shit - maybe my race/tribe/species ISN'T special, isn't godly, etc, and your moral compass starts spinning out of control.
ID, depsite Dembski's prevarications to the contrary, is another way of trying to justify humanity's exalted position using "evidence" - this is too reminiscent of social darwinism for me to feel comfortable with it! I would say that ID and SD are closer together on the phylogenetic tree than SD and materialism are . . . Does that make sense?
ID simply is not about science. It is about God.
Hey ben, if ID isn't about religion then explain why Idea clubs have to be Christian or they are considered "renegade chapters". Is Cordova one of those extremists that you disagree with?
*sigh* I read your post. I wish you people would realize that there are, despite what you read in the newspapers, intelligent thoughtful people who adhere to ID theory. I retract my statement about the Nazis, you are absolutely correct. But Joseph Stalin is another matter. If you insist on ad hominem attacks, I will respond in kind. You do not examine a theory by attacking the character and morals of someone who holds the view or "things they base their personal value on." If you must know, I do not base my personal value on the Bible's truth, and believe me, I've gone through a long process to get where I am. But that has absolutely nothing to do with ID. You think you are helping me with these arguments, but I'm getting sick of hearing them all the time. If you want to help me, examine the theory for what it says. I'm sick and tired of people who bring all this crap into the argument. This is supposed to be about science. If you want to check out my blog then you can decide for yourself what I base my personal worth on. But I would rather talk about this issue with someone who knows the science. You work in the field of science, joolya. I was hoping I could have a real discussion with you. Obviously I was wrong.
Oh, I saw an article today about a meeting in Prague called "Design and Darwinism" that attracted 700 scientists. Far from being an often misguided and excitable group of students. And hopefully removed from all the cultural pressures this issue attracts. Maybe I could find the proceedings from the conference sometime and we could talk about that, if you are up to it.
About that student group, I'm looking at the website. Perhaps I will wait until I jump to a conclusion about them, which is more than I can say for how you treated me.
Oh, I'm sorry iamb, I thought the link on your post was something about Cordova. Apparently it is your blog:). (btw, could you tell me how to do that? I am definitely not a computer person.) I don't know anything about Cordova. Please either post a link or allow me time to look at it. And I myself have started an ID club and I know what the people are like who support them. My club failed because I refused to go to Christian campus groups to talk about it because I knew the kind of people I would get coming to my club. The only thing I did that accomplished anything was a debate with the campus atheist group. Because of that debate, I have developed a respect for people who believe as you all do. And the people who were at that debate also developed a respect for me. I have recently offered the same group another oppurtunity to have a debate. The current members responded by bombarding me with emails making all kinds of assumptions about who I am and what I believe. Some of them were correct, others were not. Then a former member (who was present at the first debate) emailed the entire mailing list saying they should take me up on my offer. Believe it or not, there are people who think this is a legitimate issue and don't have competing desires. I don't think you know enough about me yet to make that judgement about me, but I submit to you that I do not. Again, I encourage you to check out my blog and decide for yourself. Just as I encourage you to check out ID theory and decide for yourself. Hint: You won't find accurate representations of ID in the media. Is that really a surprise to you? How often do you see a scientific issue covered accurately by a reporter?
It's true that science isn't often represented well in the media! If I offended you, Ben, I apologize. You may be the exception to what I've seen/read among ID proponents. I have no idea what your personal spiritual beliefs are - but many
(most?) people who are pushing ID are pretty up-front about their religious agenda (see Wedge document). Since the 17th century there has been tension over whether if the world consists only of material particles then on what grounds could one belive in a God who cared for the system?
I'm willing to debate science - I'm even willing to admit the possibility of the supernatural, although it is beyond the realm of science and ought to remain so. But I still think that the BASIS for objections to Darwinism - from many people although maybe not you personally, Ben - is theological rather than scientific. Prove me wrong.
No problem. Making a link in a comment post is the same as making a link in your blog posts. Just type in:
<*a*href="*urlhere*">type whatever you want<*/*a>
(ditch the *s, and you have to type the full url, starting with the http://)
... and you have your link. The problems start when you post on several different places. Some use basic html (what we are using here), some use quick xml (Panda's Thumb), some use quickcode (Creation Talk forums), etc. It starts getting confusing after a while. Just preview everything before posting and you'll be allright.
Hope that helps. I'll find you a link about Cordova's IDEA clubs as soon as I get the chance. Unfortunately, when he comments over at Panda's Thumb it's usually a post and scram job so we never get to see if he can back up anything.
Honestly, I don't see Cordova around Dembski's blog much anymore. If I had to guess I'd say that everyone else got sick of his brown-nosing type comments to Bill (us evilutionists just got tired of him first). Either way, he's been a lot quieter lately...
Sorry to hear that your ID club failed (really, I am). If there were more IDers of the secular variety it's entirely possible that the whole concept wouldn't get such bad press. As is, ID supporters have a hard time claiming secular purpose when they spend so much time affiliated with Christian groups and taking money from Ahmanson to run the DI.
"You think you are helping me with these arguments, but I'm getting sick of hearing them all the time."
Blahblahblah. Join the club, Ben. I'm sick of reading your arguments everywhere from the other side, too. Blah blah eugenics, blah blah stalin, blah blah not about god, blah freaking blah.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home