Just a couple days ago, I went round and round over ID here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jeffrock/140284.html), with a lot of my main points summed up in this comment (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jeffrock/140284.html?thread=1140732#t1140732). I learned a lot in the follow-up research it inspired me to do; the more I read about ID "theory," the more I felt disgusted that anyone could give this the time of day and not see how dishonest and politically motivated it is.
So thank you both for your level-headed critiques of ID "theory." I find it obnoxious that so many people don't question things more thoroughly, and how so many people can be so hard-headed that they're not phased by the fact that this "science" has nothing of the scientific method in it. It's a very transparent political game, and I think that people that don't admit it either (a) don't understand what science is, (b) know it's a political game but want their side to "win" and gain power over public discourse, or (c) are so blinded by their ideology that they immediately jump on anything that seems to support it.
What annoys me most are the ID "theorists" and their supporters who claim that they can't get published in scientific journals or get more respect in the scientific community because there's this giant conspiracy of Darwin-worshippers who are afraid of the powerful truth of ID "theory." People eat that shit up with a spoon, and it's so ridiculous! Does it cross their minds that it can't get published in journals because it doesn't meet the criteria for scientific research that all scientists must meet? Of course, to Christian fundies (whom I acknowledge are not the only people who give credence to ID "theory"), they're being "persecuted" when their religion doesn't get special treatment, and their "scientists" can't get published in scientific journals even when what they're trying to publish isn't science.
Though I do sometimes think they may be sensing the fact that their particular form of the Christian religion is in a state of decline and impending death as people's religious sensibilities and worldviews are changing. It may be the case that it goes out with a fight and a period of turmoil and backwardsness, but nonetheless, I think its days are numbered, though it may not become apparent in our lifetimes. I think that it would be interesting to see if a more gnostic and mystical form of Christianity prevails, or if other religions will begin to become more dominant as a cultural force. It's interesting to me to see the increasing visibility of yoga, Buddhism, and other non-Abrahamic forms of spirituality and religion in America. Apparently, National Geographic even has a feature story this month on the rise of Buddhism in America.
Also, I find the vision of God put forth by the ID "theorists" to be incredibly dull. Everything has been designed just so and works like clockwork. There's no wonder in that for me, the recourse to a vision of a paternalistic God that takes care of everything for you, leaving you with no responsibility. I find the vision of a universe in which chaos and order weave and dance, and constant change and nonlinear development leads to wondrous new forms, to be so awe-inspiring, and to bring me more to a sense of God than some "designer" who calls every single shot. I touch on this a little more eloquently in my comments to jeffrock:
I personally don't see how the beauty of nature or the complexity of natural systems means that there was an intelligent designer behind it all. I think resorting to such explanations actually does not do justice to the beauty and wonder of nature. It's intellectual and spiritual laziness, in my opinion. It's inspiring to me to think about how all of this beauty and diversity just wells up from the cosmos like a gift and a miracle, rather than a pre-planned event. The idea that there was something that set it all up to be "just so" has a deadening force on wonder for me. The dynamic, fluctuating universe, in which things can go all willy-nilly to some extent but which fall back to a certain pattern of development, like snowflakes, just amazes me.
Anyway, thanks for the post. It's a life preserver in a sea of insanity.
no subject
So thank you both for your level-headed critiques of ID "theory." I find it obnoxious that so many people don't question things more thoroughly, and how so many people can be so hard-headed that they're not phased by the fact that this "science" has nothing of the scientific method in it. It's a very transparent political game, and I think that people that don't admit it either (a) don't understand what science is, (b) know it's a political game but want their side to "win" and gain power over public discourse, or (c) are so blinded by their ideology that they immediately jump on anything that seems to support it.
What annoys me most are the ID "theorists" and their supporters who claim that they can't get published in scientific journals or get more respect in the scientific community because there's this giant conspiracy of Darwin-worshippers who are afraid of the powerful truth of ID "theory." People eat that shit up with a spoon, and it's so ridiculous! Does it cross their minds that it can't get published in journals because it doesn't meet the criteria for scientific research that all scientists must meet? Of course, to Christian fundies (whom I acknowledge are not the only people who give credence to ID "theory"), they're being "persecuted" when their religion doesn't get special treatment, and their "scientists" can't get published in scientific journals even when what they're trying to publish isn't science.
Though I do sometimes think they may be sensing the fact that their particular form of the Christian religion is in a state of decline and impending death as people's religious sensibilities and worldviews are changing. It may be the case that it goes out with a fight and a period of turmoil and backwardsness, but nonetheless, I think its days are numbered, though it may not become apparent in our lifetimes. I think that it would be interesting to see if a more gnostic and mystical form of Christianity prevails, or if other religions will begin to become more dominant as a cultural force. It's interesting to me to see the increasing visibility of yoga, Buddhism, and other non-Abrahamic forms of spirituality and religion in America. Apparently, National Geographic even has a feature story this month on the rise of Buddhism in America.
Also, I find the vision of God put forth by the ID "theorists" to be incredibly dull. Everything has been designed just so and works like clockwork. There's no wonder in that for me, the recourse to a vision of a paternalistic God that takes care of everything for you, leaving you with no responsibility. I find the vision of a universe in which chaos and order weave and dance, and constant change and nonlinear development leads to wondrous new forms, to be so awe-inspiring, and to bring me more to a sense of God than some "designer" who calls every single shot. I touch on this a little more eloquently in my comments to
I personally don't see how the beauty of nature or the complexity of natural systems means that there was an intelligent designer behind it all. I think resorting to such explanations actually does not do justice to the beauty and wonder of nature. It's intellectual and spiritual laziness, in my opinion. It's inspiring to me to think about how all of this beauty and diversity just wells up from the cosmos like a gift and a miracle, rather than a pre-planned event. The idea that there was something that set it all up to be "just so" has a deadening force on wonder for me. The dynamic, fluctuating universe, in which things can go all willy-nilly to some extent but which fall back to a certain pattern of development, like snowflakes, just amazes me.
Anyway, thanks for the post. It's a life preserver in a sea of insanity.