intelligent design as doublethink
Aug. 8th, 2005 12:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaIt wasn't until after reading this essay about "Intelligent Design" that it dawned on me how dangerous and pernicious this ideology is.
It is not a scientific theory, it is a prefabricated ideology designed to fit the needs of a political agenda, in response to court battles where educating students in "Creation Science" was deemed to be promotion of a religious doctrine, and in anger at the atheistic evangelism of some evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. It combines criticism of the specifics of evolutionary theory with an attitude that reifies "what we don't know about how nature works" into "proof of deliberate design."
Intelligent Design is no less than an attack on the scientific method. The method of science involves making observations about patterns in nature, and then attempting to find a consistent explanation that can be repeated by anyone. The conclusions of Intelligent Design cannot be verified by repetition. Therefore promoters of Intelligent Design rely primarily on emotional appeals that equate the complexity of nature with "design." It is an emotional endeavor, and not an intellectual one.
Their favorite example is the eye; they ask, how can the eye have evolved, when it requires the cooperation of several complex parts that "could not" have evolved separately? Never mind that engineers can tell you many obvious improvements that they would make on the design of the eye; eyes were not precision engineered, they are merely adequate to the task of parsing light into images.
"But Sabrina," you might be objecting at this point, "isn't seeking evidence for or against God's existence a valid scientific question?" Sure, it might be. But history shows that most scientists have held religious views which they assumed would be upheld by scientific observation and experimentation. In many cases, scientists had to be dragged unwillingly to conclude that doctrine was wrong. To cite one famous example, Albert Einstein resisted the implication of quantum mechanics that nature contains fundamental uncertainty because of his religious beliefs. Scientists like Richard Dawkins who take glee in trying to disprove God are rare.
ID is designed to stop people from questioning. By giving a pat, reassuring answer to any troubling question that arises, it serves to program the brain to silence its own questions about nature that might possibly (though not necessarily) lead to doubts about the truth of certain brands of religious doctrine.
It is aimed not at convincing people disinclined to believe in God, it is aimed at keeping people within the fold by giving support to the memetic parasite posing as religion. The parasite has been losing people to science because science gives fuel to doubts about literalist doctrine.
"Healthy" religion can handle doubt because it is rooted in genuine faith rather than doublethink-reinforced belief in arbitrary concepts. On the other hand, "religion" which is made up only or primarily of belief in concepts is under continual assault, especially since anyone can at any time have an experience that cannot be reconciled with the set of core memes.
It is not a scientific theory, it is a prefabricated ideology designed to fit the needs of a political agenda, in response to court battles where educating students in "Creation Science" was deemed to be promotion of a religious doctrine, and in anger at the atheistic evangelism of some evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. It combines criticism of the specifics of evolutionary theory with an attitude that reifies "what we don't know about how nature works" into "proof of deliberate design."
Intelligent Design is no less than an attack on the scientific method. The method of science involves making observations about patterns in nature, and then attempting to find a consistent explanation that can be repeated by anyone. The conclusions of Intelligent Design cannot be verified by repetition. Therefore promoters of Intelligent Design rely primarily on emotional appeals that equate the complexity of nature with "design." It is an emotional endeavor, and not an intellectual one.
Their favorite example is the eye; they ask, how can the eye have evolved, when it requires the cooperation of several complex parts that "could not" have evolved separately? Never mind that engineers can tell you many obvious improvements that they would make on the design of the eye; eyes were not precision engineered, they are merely adequate to the task of parsing light into images.
"But Sabrina," you might be objecting at this point, "isn't seeking evidence for or against God's existence a valid scientific question?" Sure, it might be. But history shows that most scientists have held religious views which they assumed would be upheld by scientific observation and experimentation. In many cases, scientists had to be dragged unwillingly to conclude that doctrine was wrong. To cite one famous example, Albert Einstein resisted the implication of quantum mechanics that nature contains fundamental uncertainty because of his religious beliefs. Scientists like Richard Dawkins who take glee in trying to disprove God are rare.
ID is designed to stop people from questioning. By giving a pat, reassuring answer to any troubling question that arises, it serves to program the brain to silence its own questions about nature that might possibly (though not necessarily) lead to doubts about the truth of certain brands of religious doctrine.
It is aimed not at convincing people disinclined to believe in God, it is aimed at keeping people within the fold by giving support to the memetic parasite posing as religion. The parasite has been losing people to science because science gives fuel to doubts about literalist doctrine.
"Healthy" religion can handle doubt because it is rooted in genuine faith rather than doublethink-reinforced belief in arbitrary concepts. On the other hand, "religion" which is made up only or primarily of belief in concepts is under continual assault, especially since anyone can at any time have an experience that cannot be reconciled with the set of core memes.
