sophiaserpentia | "Intelligent Design" as a hijacking of public discourse

Current Music: Dali's Car "Moonlife"

Entry tags:

"Intelligent Design" as a hijacking of public discourse

I was going to write a rant on "Intelligent Design," but

lady_babalon beat me to it.

In August i explored one reason the ID movement disturbs me so much: it is not science, it is an attack on the scientific method. The idea that ID deserves just as much weight and serious consideration as evolution as a scientific theory is a political fabrication promoted by a Christian group whose agenda parallels in many direct and disturbing ways the Taliban's agenda in Afghanistan -- hence the name "Chaliban."

In academia, people are starting to get furious about what is clearly an attack on them. For example, at the University of Kansas, in the same state where science was recently redefined by a school board in a way that would allow ID to be considered science, one can take a course called "Archaeological Myths and Realities" where ID is put in its rightful place alongside UFOlogy and ESP research. One can also take a class titled "Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." According to the head of the religion department there, "the K.U. faculty has had enough."

Their anger is not arrogance at having "their pet theory" challenged -- it is a response to a blatant attack on academia and on free intellectualism. ID is not a science, it was designed in Chaliban political think-tanks less than 10 years ago, in response to court battles over teaching creationism in school. ID research (such as it is) is funded by a religious cabal with a distinct anti-intellectual agenda.

As

lady_babalon put it this weekend, in reference to a completely different topic, sometimes not taking sides makes you biased. In the news media, there's this directive that you have to give equal space to both sides of the story to avoid the appearance of bias. This idea of giving equal voice to both sides of a story has carried over into common discourse. It's a reasonable idea, when both sides of the story have equal legitimacy.

However, in practice, this has given an opening for extremists to use the desire for fairness and open-mindedness to hijack discourse and give voice to ideas that, frankly, haven't earned an equal place in public discourse. Imagine for example if every news story about space exploration included the Flat Earth Society's contention that space exploration is an elaborate government hoax.

The only difference between ID and the flat Earth theory is funding.

In their quest to be "fair and balanced," the news media has played right into the hands of the Chaliban and their prefabricated made-for-prime-time pseudoscience and the political agenda that rides it piggyback.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I love it.

http://www.venganza.org/

damn! you beat me to it.

Oh, yes. I have definitely been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

"I was going to write a rant on "Intelligent Design," but lady_babalon beat me to it."

Type faster! :P

But Cap'n, i caenna type any faster!

But Cap'n, i caenna type any faster!
she's gonna blow! ;-)

Not sure i want to touch that one (but i'm going to anyway, see?)

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.

...and THEY think FSMites are uneducated and insane...

Hehehe!

what if you did not feel that the scientific method (and our scientific discoveries) were invalid but did think that there was a "G-d" behind the scenes of it all, would that mean that by default you supported the "ID" people?

Shalom,
Eve & dem.

No. Consider how many scientists who have contributed to modern biological and cosmological theories who are or were religious.

The scientific method requires a scientist to start with observation, not ideology. You start with what can be observed, and then you make a hypothesis to explain a pattern that you note, and then you test the hypothesis, and then you revise the hypothesis and continue testing. Someone else repeats the experiments and arrives at the same results. That's science.

What ISN'T science is starting with a belief and then looking for evidence that supports that belief. If you start out with an ideological bias, you cannot arrive at unbiased results.

Many scientists have had success as physicists, evolutionary biologists, and astronomers, without finding the need to impose their beliefs on their hypothesis formation. Perhaps they are guided by faith and trust that the divinely-inspired cosmic order is revealing itself through their work. It means that they have put older beliefs into perspective as previous theories about the cosmos; as such, they can still be seen as inspiration.

No, but ID is framed to take advantage of just that set of ideas. A slim majority of americans believe in either theistic or naturalistic evolution. This is an attempt to appeal to theistic evolutionists (the majority of believers in evolution, ironically) so that they will align themselves with creationist interests. Since the average evolutionist thinks its okay to believe both in evolution and in God, but doesn't really know much about "technical" science/religion epistemological differences, it seems reasonable to teach both evolution and God's guidance in the same class.

Imagine ... if every news story about space exploration included the Flat Earth Society's contention that space exploration is an elaborate government hoax.

Oh, well put! I'm going to remember this comment for later discussions. Thank you! ;)

I can't come up with any reason why they want this taught in schools except to target kids who might not otherwise get the message. As a child raised in a born-again fundamentalist Christian household, I certainly "knew" that God created the world and what they taught me in school was a "just a theory." I am certain that their kids get that same message. They want it in schools to reach the kids who aren't being taught that and that's what peeves me.

(deleted comment)

Heh. Well, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Supposedly death entered the world because of Adam's sin. So theoretically there would be evidence in the fossil record of a sudden start -- that is to say, there would be no fossils dating to before Adam's sin. There would also have to be evidence supporting the instantaneous biological change that allowed for death to happen.

For that matter, there should be evidence that the physical laws of light refraction changed around the time of Moses. Supposedly the rainbow after the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the sign of God's covenant with Moses, and that rainbows did not occur before then. Since a rainbow is merely a refraction of light through atmospheric water, wouldn't there be evidence that the laws of light refraction were at one time different than they are now?

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.

FWIW, I actually work at KU and was highly amused and delighted by tbe new course (and of course dismayed by the creeping cancer crap of the nuts who apparently know how to get into decision making positions and hijack the damned system from those who like it well enough as it is. We kicked out the last dumbass school board who tried this crap, looks like we need to do it again. Damnit).

It's also worse than you know. The head of the school boards in KS actually did intrusive interviews into every employee and basically forced those who don't believe in his nutcase ways to quit. This is of course simplistically stated and not completely accurate, but it's close enough. It was in recent news and probably isn't too hard to find ...

On the news this morning, the professor who put forth the KU class apparently said way too many things he shouldn't and the emails were leaked.

The board of regents yanked his class. No anti-ID classes taught at KU, at least for now.

Damnit.

In further news the professor in question, head of the religious studies department was found on a rural roadside beaten to within an inch of his life.

Yay, go christians go! That's turning the other cheek!

Grr. I hate overstating. Teach me to read the whole story after my first post on it. He was just beaten for the class, not beaten to within an inch of his life:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/06/creationism.class.ap/index.html

Ooh, thanks for that. ::ponders writing a rant::

A better version of the story from the local paper:
http://media.ljworld.com/flattened/mirecki_2005_12_06.html

A second KU class being offered in a different department:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/nov/27/2nd_ku_class_denies_status_science_design_theory/?evolution

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Intelligent Design" as a hijacking of public discourse

I assume you are familiar with

Re: I assume you are familiar with

Re: I assume you are familiar with

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: I assume you are familiar with

Re: I assume you are familiar with

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject