November 28, 2005
The Creation of Intelligent Demise
Numerous studies show that the more educated an individual is the less likely he is to believe in a higher being. This makes sense to those of us who are atheists or wavering with agnostic indecision, and this makes sense to those of us who have been fortunate to have a decent education separate from or untainted by religion and its misrepresentations. We understand that as an individual learns more about her surroundings she becomes more comfortable with the fact that science - real science - provides the support needed to prove why certain things happen, have happened or will happen.
Granted, science doesn't have the answer to everything. But that doesn't mean fantasy automatically fills the holes; religion only provides comfort in dealing with the unknown. And until recently we lived in a land that respected its people's right to deal with the unknown how they saw fit, in the privacy of their own homes or places of worship. Admittedly I have no faith and can not identify with those who do, but making a concerted effort to push a particular agenda on people, especially in our educational system, is inexcusable.
On Tuesday, November 8, 2005 the Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 in favor of allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in its school. One member of the Board, Janet Waugh, responded with this, mirroring my own sentiments,
"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."
Something like this happening in Kansas is expected in this country’s current de-evolutionary climate but thinking about something similar happening in Pennsylvania gives me the willies. This is just another chapter in a long line of moronic decisions made by subsidized people. Almost to perfection the red states of America continue to support smaller government (save homeland security) but draw more and more federal aid than they contribute to the pot. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that these people can't understand this concept. I digress. Debate over teaching creationism or its watered down form in public schools has been raging for years but a topic related to manipulating children with religious gobble-dee-gook has been largely ignored – and that is the future economic impact of such decisions. Perhaps the pundits agree there will be none, but without having tested the scenario I think it warrants conversation.
I am a proponent of public education. That being said, I wouldn’t ever move to a state that teaches "intelligent design" in its public schools. I’m also fairly certain that a measurable minority would agree with me, and that these people tend to have successful careers and at minimum, an undergraduate education. This groups is also composed of community leaders, volunteers, entrepreneurs and the like. It’s not to say that those who favor “intelligent design” are not any of these things but that the demographic most offended and most repelled by this issue constitutes a higher percentage of the type. Teaching "intelligent design" in public schools will only have one effect – it will deter people who contribute to society at a higher rate than the average citizen to avoid schools, and therefore states, in which public education has been tainted by religious influence. Over time this will result in slower economic growth and investment, and in most cases in the states that need it most.
Posted by Vihar Sheth at November 28, 2005 10:36 AMit will deter people who contribute to society at a higher rate than the average citizen to avoid schools, and therefore states, in which public education has been tainted by religious influence. Over time this will result in slower economic growth and investment, and in most cases in the states that need it most.
For the most part, your article makes sense - albeit not politically palatable.
Your conclusion above however doesn’t make sense. Educated people who withdraw from schools for whatever reason find an equal or better alternative.
The intelligent design issue is largely inconsequential and people are getting too worked up about it. Have a little faith.
It is sad how people have begun to cling to this idea of ID. It has gone from being a resonable theological or metaphisical theory to a tool for Christians to make creationism into science. The problem is not that intelligent design is necessarily false, but that it is being misplaced and misused in Kansas.
Intelligent design can not help us combat viral evolution; it does not help us understand our physical universe. But it does have a significant purpose, in the world of theology or metaphysics. Here it can explain the nature of existence and give us a fundamental view of the world around us. Theology has important cultural and intellectual significance and metaphysics helps people comprehend the world and act accordingly. These are things that science can not explain.
In other words, intelligent design and evolution are in completely different realms of thought and should be kept separated to ensure the continued significance of each.
The problem with intelligent design is that its sole goal is to oppose evolution, and yet the two ideas are not even comparable since they exist as two separate ways to observe nature. Its supporters accuse science of attempting to explain everything, but scientists only aim to explain our physical world: the realm of science.
There is nothing wrong with questioning a scientific theory, but evolution is still our €œbest guess€ to scientifically explain the origins of life and media-related accusations can not change that, nor should they claim to have changed that. Science is not a democracy. Intelligent design should not be taught as scientific theory.
Posted by: dbpitt at November 28, 2005 11:31 AMVihar,
From the “right”: If you do not teach creationism in public schools, you are attacking Christianity. You are anti-religion.
This argument is flawed because a majority of those who argue against religion and creationism in public schools are not against practicing ones religion at home, church, parochial school or in many public venues, just not in public schools.
From the “left”: “Numerous studies show that the more educated an individual is the less likely he is to believe in a higher being.”
This argument is arrogent sounding, insulting and elitist.
This is why alot of Christians feel that Democrats are anti-religion. Most importantly, your statements fuel the fires of the far-right kooks and their hate-speech masked as religion.
We need to focus on the separation of church and state, but at the same time not insult each other. The “right” like to attack the morals of Democrats, without knowing our dedication to our faith. The “left” like to question the intelligence of those who believe in a higher power. Both groups are missing the big picture.
Both are responsible for the divide that has weakend our nation.
Vihar, if so many studies show education leads to disbelief in a deity, how about linking to one. Otherwise, I don’t believe it, and I think your entire premise is a biased claim. I am quite well educated, and know there is a deity, a creator. I also know that string theory and brane theory inevitably will lead to the conclusion that an intelligent creator must exist.
Now the whole issue of whether the creator comes back to correct imperfections in their creation or otherwise intervenes in what was created is a matter of personal experience and belief as well, for which scientific proof can never exist, nor address. For such experience and belief lies within a person, not outside in the universe to be examined and tested.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 12:08 PMSchwamp: Your comment about I.D. being inconsequential is right on the money. I for one do not even remember evolution being taught in my public high school. The more this becomes an issue, the more the religeous right gets to hype it. To me this is all about filling up their churches. The more they can create some issue to rally around, the more their pews are filled (and collection plates).
I think that if you are going to advocate scientific thoeries to be taught in public school classrooms, then scientists, not theologians need to do the advocating
First of all let me just say Watchblog is great. I appreciate the comments and am excited about debating a variety of issues with people who have opinions backed up by some level of research and logic.
Per David Remer’s suggestion:
Numerous studies supporting my claim.
Also, science has shown a definitive link between religion and genetics, as described in this article. The last paragraph gives the religious ammo to support their point of view, perhaps to avoid taking sides, I just don’t believe it.
Posted by: Vihar Sheth at November 28, 2005 12:41 PMI’m not the least little bit afraid of Intelligent Design being taught in any public school.
I don’t support it, nor am I surprised at the unending attack from the right wing of the G.O.P. to attempt to force others to “see it their way”. It’s another missionary type attempt to spread the word, much like the Jehovahs knocking on the door.
The reason I don’t care if it’s included in the curriculum is because I trust the science teacher that has been educated by a real live accredited place of higher learning, and that the science department is not run by Oral Roberts.
Given the science teacher is an actual scientist, bring I.D. to his/her classroom should easily dispel the absurdity of the entire movement.
It offers the opportunity to discuss theory, and how some theories are accepted as factual due to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting the conclusion. Like Evolution.
There is no such evidence of any facts in I.D., it’s not even a theory, because there are not sufficient facts to support it, so it is less than a theory. It’s an alternative to evolution, with not a shred of factual evidence to support it’s conclusions.
Real scientists can deal with this, easily debunk it at an 8th grade level without turning the entire class into godless heathens.
For me, religion supports evolution. All I have to do is realize that 7 days is not exactly meant to mean seven revolutions of the earth. More like 7 millenia, translated incorrectly.
What is time to a being with no beginning and no end? Time is not measured by such a deity, if it took 7 million years instead of 7 days, what’s so wrong with that?
I can simultaneously believe in God and Evolution, no problem. I can also explain to a child how ridiculous is the premise of I.D.
Bring it on. Force I.D. into my school’s science class. It’ll give science a chance to prove itself.
Posted by: Tim Reinhart at November 28, 2005 12:50 PMAnyone who says well educated people are by default less inclined to be religious obviously has never met a Notre Dame graduate. I personally know many MBA’s who are very devoted to their religion, as well as high school dropouts that say there is no God. Religious inclinations come from a multitude of influences including a person’s family, friends, community, economic status, education and any number of other events throughout life, large or small that affected that person on a spiritual level. To single out education is irresponsible.
ID should not be taught in school because it is unconstitutional. End of argument.
Picking on the residents of a state and implying they’re stupid not only gives rise to their need to defend their argument even harder, but also weakens your argument because you can’t come up with anything constructive to say, making you sound, well, stupid.
As far as the people who “contribute to society at a higher rate than the average citizen” moving away from the school or city that teaches ID. This will never happen as long as private schools exist and there are companies to be run.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at November 28, 2005 01:04 PMVihar Sheth,
Good article. I have much more that I would like to say, and not the time to say it, so I will only say this. Do not doubt the credability of people who are religious, because some of them see the veil that is ID too… and they oppose it just as much.
-Einghf
Posted by: einghf at November 28, 2005 01:13 PMThe concept that has bothered me is that teaching evolution as a theory is wrong unless you concede that God created the system. How could this make it better if you don’t believe it to begin with?
Posted by: Lew at November 28, 2005 01:20 PMVihar:
Your documentation began with the statistic that 96% of Americans believe in God, in some form. Your conclusion then must be that the other 4% are the smartest of the lot, since they don’t believe in God. Kinda interesting, dontcha think?
Actually your premise statement is incorrect, based on the research you provided. You said that the more intelligent one is, the more likely they do not believe in God. Your link stated that the more intelligent one is, the less likely they are to be religious.
This isn’t really that surprising, nor does it necessarily indicate that religion or a belief in God is somehow the product of an inferior mind. My belief in God teaches me humility and helps me show a level of reliance outside of myself. That’s not to say I don’t retain responsibility for my actions and productivity, but it does mean that I recognize a greater power. Often, those who are most intelligent rely only on themselves, and therefore would be more likely to not believe in a higher power.
This isnt always the best way though. Consider John DeLorean who was a highly intelligent and driven man—he tried to be totally selfreliant and it cost him his career, his company and his dignity. Consider a Terrell Owens who is possibly the best reciever in football, but who has alienated others such that his career is in shambles. Intelligence alone, like talent, is not the full determining factor in success.
Vihar, those who do not believe in a higher power are in the vast minority. The degree to which people believe ranges greatly. Teaching ID isn’t a problem—it simply allows students to hear another idea. They can then choose to believe what they feels is the most reasonable option. This is called….freedom of choice. Interesting that many who want freedoms for THEIR ideas do not want freedom for other ideas.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 01:22 PMNumerous studies show that the more educated an individual is the less likely he is to believe in a higher being.
Rather than be insulted, I’ll share this link:
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
I think I’m in rather good company if those are less “intelligent” people.
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 28, 2005 01:32 PMI am a Catholic, who went to Baylor University, a Baptist college. Both my church, and the institution I learned at reject the Young Earth Creationist Theory. I can say that most of the faculty at Baylor rejected the foundation of an institute for ID, and that Baylor teaches Biology, Cosmology, and Geology according to standard scientific consensus. The Catholic Church might teach that God can and does intervene in things, but I have never heard any approval of ID as a scientific notion. Perhaps because they already tried ID in some form, and found it wanting.
This is not as much a conflict between religion and reason as some would have it. For many who are religious, the notion is that truth cannot contradict truth, and that if the bible doesn’t represent the literal truth, it does not mean it lacks divine inspiration, that is, truth at another level of the text.
Much of this conflict comes out of the attempt to make science more religious, and religion more scientific. The response of the fundamentalists to the rise of science’s compelling, reliable generation of knowledge is to try something similar, taking biblical passages as scientifically and/or historically reliable premises for spiritual and worldly knowledge.
The flaw in this is that the Bible was written in the informal terms of oral storytelling and the vernacular and context of the times. It has also been exposed to the depredations of multiple translations and traditions of translation. I trust what the bible says myself, but I do not trust literal language to be an ever-reliable mechanism for conveying meaning. I believe it takes active thought to interpret language optimally, and that linguistic communication is imperfect at best.
I should note that Christ himself noted the necessity to live by more than just the letter of the law. So did St. Paul. Without the love, the unformalizable unfathomable love beneath those words, all the literal detail is meaningless. The spirit of what the bible offers is of more consequence than it’s value as a historical or scientific document. It is in fact its purpose.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2005 01:40 PMVihar,
The issue isn’t about whether intelligent design should or should not be taught in the schools, of course it should be taught.
The issue should be exactly where does “ID” belong. My thoughts are that it should be right there along side the Creation Myths and Theories of the Western European religions, Islam, the Native Americans, the “Eastern” philosophies & religions, the African based religions and all the rest. In other words, in a comparative religion class
To single out “ID” as an alternative to evolution is to say that the Christian god is the “true” god and that all the rest are just wannabe’s. Good excuse for a religious war if you ask me.
I totally agree with your premise that education opens one’s mind to science’s role in the universe. However, education is often tempered by environment, upbringing and peer pressure. Those of us who have lived in the Red States, often know that the first question asked of you by the locals is not what you do for a living but rather what church you go to. Your answer fixes your standing in the scoial hierachry.
Posted by: Rjbal4 at November 28, 2005 01:44 PMJBOD:
“Teaching ID isn€™t a problem€”it simply allows students to hear another idea.”
To me, statements like this are disingenous and really dangerous in their consequences. This is the problem:
By teaching in science classes that ID is an “alternative theory” or addresses “gaps” in evolutionary theory, it gives equal intellectual credence to an idea that’s completely unscientific. Why doesn’t ANY other country have religious problems with evolution? Even countries that are traditionally religious and conservative, like Spain and Italy, have no problem with evolution. Israel doesn’t. India doesn’t. China doesn’t - why here in the US?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have no problem with ID being taught in philosophy, religion, or literature classes. But as science? Come on. Why not teach phlogistic chemistry or flat-earth geography? Mayan creation myths?
Why is it a good idea to give students “choices,” when one of the choices is science and one a very particular slant on a particular religion’s beliefs?
Posted by: Arr-squared at November 28, 2005 02:14 PMArr:
I’ll admit to not knowing much on the details of ID. What I know of evolution is that it does not answer all the questions. The biggest question that I see unanswered is where things started from. I hear about the “Big Bang” theory, but no one explains who provided the things that went bang.
When I hear about evolution, it seems the biggest hangup is on men coming from apes. I see evolution happening constantly, but I have yet to see proof that man descended from apes. That is to say, I see evolution WITHIN species, but I havent seen proof of evolution creating new species.
Personally, I tend to agree with you that ID should be taught, but maybe not in science classes. That might be a good compromise.
Seems to me that many try to use evolution to disprove the existence of God. I figure if God is omnipotent, then he could have used evolution as his process. To me a belief in evolution doesn’t preclude a belief in God.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 02:27 PMVihar, your link does not support your argument at all. The link article says right up front, 96% of all Americans believe in God. That incorporates a huge number of the educated my friend.
Your hyperlink addresses a link between education and an affinity for religion. NOT a link between education and the belief in God as your article states. Education does nothing to displace a belief in God. For many, as I said, education actually affirms a belief in God, as one learns more about the awesomeness of the universe and its immense diversity and dimensions and regularity as well as inexplicability, as string and brane theory portend.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 02:37 PMjoebagodonuts,
If you teach the possibility of one religion having to do with the creation of our world, you have to teach and give equal time to all religions.
I could not teach American History, and only discuss the settlers of European descent. I have to include all people who played a role in the shaping of our nation and what was happening in the rest of the world at the same time in order to give the students perspective. To really see the big picture, how could any person try to teach religion without exploring so many different religions and histories and sociology, mythology etc.?
I stand corrected on the issue of relating belief in god to level of intelligence versus relating religiousness to intelligence. The studies show the second comparison is inversely proportional, not the first.
That being said, it clearly isn’t my intention to insult those who belief in a faith, as so many do. Nor am I making any exclusive claims that if you believe in god you’re not intelligent, or vice versa. I have very intelligent family and friends who vary considerably in their degree of spirituality.
My point is that disecting more educated, more intelligent demographic groups yields larger proportions of people who do not either consider themselves religious and/or believe in god in comparison with the average person. I feel that some people are taking my comments to be absolute. They are not.
Statistics don’t lie, but they don’t paint the entire picture either. Consider exercising in lieu of faith. It’s common knowledge that those who exercise live longer than those who don’t. We also know that marathon runners sometimes drop dead at an early age and some people who binge (without the purge) their entire lives live well into their nineties. But, over a large sample size the claim stands.
My fear is that teaching intelligent design along side evolution will further taint and invalidate an already fragile educational system. Districts will fight for and against this issue when our kids need more help in all aspects of primary education. Educators and scientists should decide what our children learn, not religiously motivated school board members. American children struggle to keep up with their counterparts all over the world in math and science, among other subjects. Allowing teaching of intelligent design in schools will only dilute resources further as the debates continue.
Separation of church and state is the vital topic here. The debate always seems to rest on the Christian idea of life, and while America is primarily Christian, other theories exist. If intelligent design is to be considered, then why not fundamental Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu ideas too? Evolution is the common ground between every scientifically developed nation no matter their religious past. It should be the only common ground in this arena between the nations’ children too.
Posted by: Vihar Sheth at November 28, 2005 03:13 PMWho cares what the nerds at 2+ standard deviations above the mean believe? What do they have to teach us about “heart”? Theirs is religion of the “head”, which usually leads to “homo-centric” concepts of theology. But try as they might, they’ll never figure things out to their own satisfaction. Just as a high IQ, or great intellect never predicts happiness or fullfillment in life, neither does great popularity or higher educational attainment.
Brainy nerds and spoiled rich kids are often incredibly self-absorbed elitists who are more comfortable with Ivy League Aristocratic rule. Democrats believe in democracy and are willing to let ideas compete in a free market place.
Andre, I agree with you and with Jim Wallis. I think that many on the left just “don’t get it.”
Many “elitist” ideas expressed concerning religion on this blog are repugnant to me as a Democrat with a heart for the Social Gospel in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King and the prophet Isaiah. Brainy athiests and strident Universalists can worship at the feet of secular humanism all they want - but when they over-generalize their attacks on Christians, they do great harm to the Democratic cause, which is to win elections. How pragmatic is it to take an attitude of superiority? Intellectual atheistic snobbery can lose votes! Would you create a ruling class of Neo-Libs? Phrases like “a decent education separate from or untainted by religion and its misrepresentations” surely won’t win you many friends amongst those of us Chistians who formed the historic heart of the anti-slavery and Civil Rights movements. You are practicing the politics of division, just as your Neo-Con counterparts are on the right. Do you remember all the references to “pointy-headed liberals” and “effete snobs” uttered by Spiro Agnew? Why do you think he got elected? Or, don’t you get it?
Posted by: Roger Waun at November 28, 2005 04:01 PMJBOD,
The claim isn’t that humans descended from the apes. The claim is that humans and apes had a common ancestor. If you look at the fossil evidence, you can see multiple species of hominids going back close to 5 million years. Here’s a good website with an overview of human evolution. Note that not only are there several different species, but also (at least) two different genuses (Australopithecus and Homo).
Arguably the two most famous hominid fossils are “Lucy” (Australopithecus Afarensis. Found by a party led by Donald Johanson, who wrote a terrific book about it called “Lucy”) who dates back about 3 million years, and “Zinjanthropus” (now called Australopithecus Boisei) from about 1 - 2 million years ago, found in 1959 and made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey.
There are also more fragmentary finds going back to 7-8 million years ago, where the human and ape lineages start to come together. These fossil finds commonly referred to as the Miocene apes.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 28, 2005 04:07 PMRoger Waun-
they do great harm to the Democratic cause, which is to win elections.
That’s a gold star comment you’ve got there. You could say the same about the gun control arguments as well.
Oh, there he goes off to his room to write that hit song “Alone in My Principles.” - Quote from the movie “That Thing You Do”
“Winning elections”?!? That—as we have seen—has more in common with deceit and treachery than with honesty and ethical integrity. If anyone thinks that the path this nation—and the world—is on can be altered in any fundamental way through the electoral process, your critical thinking/analytical skills—as well as youtr grasp of reality— may be more congruent with the supporters of pseudosciences—such as ID— than you may imagine. “Winning elections” is simply not a goal worthy enough to justify the sacrifice of one’s integrity and intellectual honesty. In fact—nothing is.
Posted by: grrl_aex at November 28, 2005 04:41 PMIf you believe that species can evolve within their own gene pool, then you have to believe at some point that the changes can make it difficult to impossible to be part of the same gene pool. As it becomes more difficult for the creatures to disseminate new mutations between their different groups, the independence becomes a runaway difference of species. Once that starts, it’s rare that one can turn back.
As for that heart and head thing, I don’t think either determines what’s real and what’s not. Science is a matter of disciplined guesswork, the discipline helping to maintain the sharp edge of inquiry against ideas that are attractive, but not really that good at heart.
The real elitists here are the ones who demand that their picture of the world dominate without passing the logical and practical tests that get applied to every other piece of natural scientific theory.
I think evolution is one the most misunderstood and misused theories out there. I much prefer to believe that truth cannot take away from truth. Having standards of mental discipline, in its way, honors God, who has told us time and time again the value of wisdom and knowledge.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2005 04:55 PMgrrl_aex,
So, winning elections isn’t important?
And why would you assume that deceipt and treachery are what won the elections in 2004?
Perhaps, instead, it was the arrogance that Democrats displayed by assuming that we would win votes by not articulating the values that most of the electorate espoused.
Values are important - more important than closeted computer nerds and their ilk would like to admit. When are Democratic values are clearly articulated, we win elections. Our message should be directed at issues of social and economic justice, a clean environment, universal health care, and improved education. When we get off target we lose elections. A re-do of the Scopes Monkey Trial or arguments over stone tablets on courthouse lawns are not worthy of our focus. The vast majority of the electorate doesn’t care. But, when you see the deterioration of American families and our race to the bottom of the economic heap based upon the WalMartization of our economy - you’ll get the attention of people.
Posted by: Roger Waun at November 28, 2005 06:50 PMI have enjoyed reading the comments that have been made concerning intelligent design and evolution. I am a retired high school and junior college chemistry/physics teacher who has had 37 years of being asked questions involving evolution and intelligent design. The answers I have given depended upon those who were asking and what they wanted. I teach science not religion- When you go ashore leave the ship tied in the harbor- an answer I often had to use.
Posted by: Bob C at November 28, 2005 06:56 PMIntelligence? Intelligence? Bah humbug. Give me heart and guts and faith anyday. I know many intelligent and highly educated losers, just as I know many simple yet wise people hugely successful in their lives. It is not intelligence or education that determines ones worth or the value of their contribution. It is their heart, their faith and their guts. People of faith dream dreams of things that never were, and say why not? I.D. has no place in schools, but let us remember, that science is a work in progress. It represents the current state of our accumulated knowledge, until we learn that some of what we “knew” up to now, was wrong. Evolution of man from the apes in a theory which is not supported by a direct evolutionary link. Therefore it is a theory. A theory which may have much going for it, but a thoery none the less. And even if proven, it does not displace the idea of a Creator necessarily.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 28, 2005 08:06 PMThere is as much or more science to support the theory that life couldnt have arrisen by chance as there is for evolution. Most Americans especially liberals are just so used to hearing only on side of the story. The liberal reaction to the idea of presenting the evidence and arguments against there pet religion(evolution) is actually sad. If evolutionist were confedent that they had the facts on there side they wouldnt be terrified of loosing there monopoly on the flow of information.
Read In Six Days edited by john ashton phd. Its writen by 50 creationist with phds.
Icons of Evolution by Wells, Refuting Evolution 1&2 by Sarfait phd, Creator and the Cosmos by Ross phd, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by McDowell, Bones of Contention by Ludenow and also Lee Strobel’s books Case for a Creator and others all present scientific evidence challenging and disproving evolutionary theory.
In the Dark Ages the common people were denied the education that was reserved only for the elite and clergy. i wonder what the scientific studies and statiistics would have proved concerning faith and intelligence at that time?
It has been sugested blacks are less intelligent than other races based on scientific studies measuring brain size. Now it is suggested faith also is an indicator of inferior intelligence. i have not heard but these lead me to wonder the motives behind those genetic gay gene studies. Are secular Humanists now a master race? Is this the reason the Catholic Italian minister was judged ‘unfit to hold office’?
If we are to learn from history, it is that elitism and state sponsored ideaology or faith destroy civilization.
Posted by: jo at November 28, 2005 11:55 PMCreationists and thew Bird Flu
Caught Dr. Dean Edell yesterday on KFI, Los Angeles, and had to relate this. He’s come up with a solution to the likely shortage of vaccine in the event the bird flu mutates to an infectious human strain. As some 45% of Americans don’t believe in evolution, and the mutation of bird flu is an evolutionary development, we merely limit the availability of vaccine to people who believe in the science. This would accomplish a couple of things: Assure sufficient vaccine to those who believe it is necessary; and help remove creationists from the gene pool!
Posted by: Roland Vincent at November 29, 2005 12:16 AMPaul,
Evolution of man from the apes in a theory which is not supported by a direct evolutionary link. Therefore it is a theory. A theory which may have much going for it, but a thoery none the less.Yes, it is a theory. Theories, by definition, are never proven absolutely. Math can be proven, natural science cannot—theories can just approximate the truth more and more closely. Newton’s “laws” of gravitation are also just theories.
And even if proven, it does not displace the idea of a Creator necessarily.Agreed (except for the idea that a theory can ever be absolutely proven). The only people I know of that view the theory of evolution as an attack on religion are the same people that are pushing the ID movement. Scientists view it simply for what it is—a scientific theory, which does not prove or disprove creationism in any way. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science—they are mutually exclusive by definition, which is the whole point.
kelly,
There is as much or more science to support the theory that life couldnt have arrisen by chance as there is for evolution.Actually, no there’s not. All the arguments I have heard (stemming from Darwin’s Black Box) are built on faulty premises and have been debunked. I will look into some of the books you listed when I can, but if you care to give an actual example that supports the opinion that life couldn’t have arisen by chance I will debate it with you now. So that there’s no misunderstanding…I’m not saying that there’s any proof that life didn’t involve by intelligent design, just that there’s no evidence that it did.
The liberal reaction to the idea of presenting the evidence and arguments against there pet religion(evolution) is actually sad.What’s sad is when people try to discredit a scientific theory using arguments that are all in the realm of faith. What’s sad is that so many ID supporters believe that there is a fanatical army of scientists that are trying to disprove creationism and the existence of god.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 29, 2005 12:30 AM
It is not arrogant or condescending for the left to point out the arrogance and condescension of those who use religion to divide us. Stopping Mullahs Dobson, Robinson et al from imposing their distorted view of Jesus on our society, or from vilifying those who do not share their zeal is not anti-christian - nor is calling them Mullahs. Do many on the left hold snobbish viewpoints towards those of faith? Perhaps. But I’d be willing to bet that those same people would be at the forefront in protecting the right of other to practice the very faith they may look down upon. Democrats can point out the hypocrisy of those who manipulate faith, particularly some (of course not all) of those who lead evangelical fundamentalist christian groups and still appeal to the moral and ethical values underpinning the faith of the majority of fair-minded religious Americans.
Posted by: roger at November 29, 2005 12:38 AMRoger,
Dobson and Robinson are not a threat to most people. Robinson has tried to run for president how many times? We do not take him seriously. They do not speak for the majority of Christians in AMerica, let alone the majority of peoples of faith from many different religions.
Secular Humanism DOES have power, and has been established BY the state as the ONLY ideology allowed in our public schools. Secular Humanists are the ones with the POWER to effect our entire society and are now attempting to bar all other ideologies and faith from our schools but from the whole of the American public square.
The Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, 700 CLub whatever, are mere nuisances to most and a comfort to some. Their attempt to push THEIR ideas on us has no teeth. Secular Humanists on the other hand not only have the teeth; but have the power of the government behind them to keep all other thoughts from free expression.
Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 12:51 AM
Roger,
Well spoken!
But my concerns were more directed at those who would group all Christian Evangelicals into the same grouping as the far-right fundamentalist Christian groups you so clearly lampoon as Mullahs.
Also, I think that people of the Christian faith are essential allies in the drive for social and economic justice, as well as other worthy causes that have historically appealed to Democrats. I was reacting to the point of view that would attack religious values. I don’t agree with those who would ban religious expression from the public square. That said, I think this whole controversy over ID is a diversion from what’s most important.
Much like the “Merry Christmas” controversy they are pushing. Neither controversy helps solve this nation’s problems - nor do they make a tinker’s damn of a difference in the lives of our citizens.
Karl Rove would be overjoyed to see how much thought power and time is being wasted over this stuff. While we argue ID, corporations continue to dispoil our land, air and water. Health care gets farther out of reach for millions of Americans. Families are breaking up at an alarming rate. And we continue to be miered in an immoral and ill-conceived foreign adventure in Iraq. Such issues as flag burning and religious expressions on our coinage just don’t make any difference in people’s lives. They are diversions from what is really important to our Democracy.
When are we Liberals going to wake up to what is important - and stop taking the bait?
Roger Waun,
Imo, both the left and right have driven away much of their support by taking the bait and bwoing to single issue fringe groups. Hopefully someone will wake up soon.
Right in the middle of a debate about evolution, gen pools and intelligence (full of, lack of or designing, whatever), I think it’s time for someone to introduce reference to this great site:
Have fun.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 29, 2005 05:45 AMDavid R. Remer,
I am quite well educated, and know there is a deity, a creator. I also know that string theory and brane theory inevitably will lead to the conclusion that an intelligent creator must exist.
You don’t know, you believe. That’s the difference between knowledge and faith. One need some facts, the other not.
You’ve all rights to believe it. I, for one, believe (pun intended) that everyone should be free to believe (or not) in what he want BUT that education should provides knowledge and skills to our kids, not pre-formatted opinions ready to be push into their heads.
Please, allow them to make themselves their own opinions on their world, physical as spiritual (if such thing actually exists).
If ID theory should be presented to american kids in public schools, it should NOT be as a scientific one but in a course about theology. Which, AFAIK, is currently forbidden by your constitution, isn’t it?
BTW: don’t your kids needs to be more skilled in math than in theology in these global free market days???
PS: I’m a french agnostic, I don’t believe in ID and I find funny that someone could qualify as *intelligent* the real mess the world is since start. I’ve more faith in 42 theory, though ;-)
Another ID false argument is that Darwinian evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the origin of life, the Earth, anything. Darwin’s whole work is about speciation, the emergence of the universe is the realm of cosmology, an entirely different field of study.
Any cosmologist worth her salt will tell you that the big bang theory is their best guess at how the universe emerged. It seems, to me, implausible, but I’m just a social scientist.
But to conflate evolution with cosmology is yet another intellectually dishonest argument deployed by those who would supplant science with religion.
Tonight, we’re going to party like it’s 1599.
Posted by: Arr-squared at November 29, 2005 10:03 AMWhen I went to public school I was taught I.D. but then it was called creationism. It was taught in my seventh grade science class as a theory along with evolution, seeding, and spontanous existance. I believe the big bang theory was in there too, but only breifly mentioned. At that time(and I believe it is still so) they only theory that had actual scientific backing was evolution, but as a student I liked knowing other theories were being looked at. It made it seem more ligit to follow evolution
Posted by: Susan at November 29, 2005 10:46 AMI stopped after the first sentence:
“Numerous studies show that the more educated an individual is the less likely he is to believe in a higher being.”
Albert Einstein said…”God doesn’t play dice.” We all agree he was a mathematical genius, correct?
Enough said. Don’t waste your time reading any further. LOL
Posted by: Silent Majority at November 29, 2005 12:37 PMIt doesn’t matter if ID is taught in school or not. The performance of students on tests given to determine what has been learned demonstrate that the kids are for the most part learning nothing. They go to school because the law mandates it. They learn to play video games because their peers demand it. They have no interest in math or science because their parents don’t understand either.
Posted by: richard at November 29, 2005 01:32 PMSilent Majority
“Albert Einstein said€€God doesn€™t play dice.€ We all agree he was a mathematical genius, correct?”
that quote is taken out of context. he was aguing against quantum physics. what he meant when he said the quote that nothing was random at a quantum level. a fact we know know to be false. there was no intended theological diolouge in the quote
Yes,
Many intelligent minds also created the atom bomb that vaporized hundred of thousands of Japanese and have left a legacy of deformities, leukemia and the like, and thank “God” they didnt have to bother with issues of ethics or “intelligent design”.
Posted by: Kristen at November 29, 2005 04:45 PMPhillipe said: “You don’t know, you believe. “
What’s the difference?
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2005 05:11 PMSometimes a post appears in WB where our endless arguing really seems to be beside the point. I consider this one to be one of those. (No offense, Vihar Sheth. Your article was well written. While I’m a liberal agnostic, I don’t even want to think about whether having faith in God could denote a lower IQ — it’s the kind of topic that can breed only divisiveness and prejudice between people. I do however, agree with what you wrote regarding public education for I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state.)
Anyway, because I feel that arguing isn’t truly necessary here, a poem for two of the responses in this thread seem appropriate. (Warning to those who hate poetry — you’ll need to scroll past this post!)
This, for the always eloquent Paul in Euroland:
Celtic CrossThe implicated generations made
This symbol of their lives, a stone made light
By what is carved on it.The plaiting masks,
But not with involutions of a shade,
What a stone says, and what a stone cross asks.Something that is not mirrored by nor trapped
In webs of water or bag-nets of cloud;
The tangled mesh of weed
lets it go by.
Only men’s minds could ever have unmapped
Into abstraction such a territory.No green bay going yellow over sand
Is written on by winds to tell a tale
Of death-dishevelled gull
or heron, stiff
As a cruel clerk with gaunt writs in his hand
-Or even of light, that makes its depths a cliff.Singing responses order otherwise.
The tangled generations ravelled out
In links of song whose sweet
strong choruses
Are these stone involutions to the eyes
Given to the ear in abstract vocables.The stone remains, and the cross, to let us know
Their unjust, hard demands, as symbols do.
But on them twine and grow
beneath the dove
Serpents of wisdom whose cool statements show
Such understanding that it seems like love.—Norman MacCaig
And a poem for David Remer and other like-minded Buddhists:
Spell of CreationPosted by: Adrienne at November 29, 2005 05:24 PMWithin the flower there lies a seed,
Within the seed there springs a tree,
Within the tree there spreads a wood.In the wood there burns a fire,
And in the fire there melts a stone,
Within the stone a ring of iron.Within the ring there lies an O
Within the O there looks an eye,
In the eye there swims a sea,And in the sea reflected sky,
And in the sky there shines the sun,
Within the sun a bird of gold.Within the bird there beats a heart,
And from the heart there flows a song,
And in the song there sings a word.In the word there speaks a world,
A word of joy, a world of grief,
From joy and grief there springs my love.Oh love, my love, the springs a world,
And on the world there shines a sun
And in the sun there burns a fire,Within the fire consumes my heart
And in my heart there beats a bird
And in the bird there wakes an eye,Within the eye, earth, sea and sky,
Earth, sky and sea within an O
Lie like the seed within the flower.—Kathleen Raine
I generally don’t buy the argument that the imperfections in this world and ourselves argue against God, because I don’t know many people who have created worlds themselves, and we humans have demonstrated a very imperfect understanding of the causality of the world around us. I figure, somebody who could make a universe like this work, especially over billions of years and vast expanses of space is not an ideal being to second guess.
With that in mind, I’d say this: Science may not be perfect in its explanations, but it’s better than religion at explaining the nuts and bolts of the universe. The Reason? Religion is concerned with ethics, morality, and speculation of things that are beyond our ability to observe. To a great degree, it is also a field of narrative, of meaningful stories.
These are fields that deal with human and metaphysical factors, factors that make things more opaque in the follow-up, because you can’t follow facts to logically necessary outcomes.
Without that ability to check back and forth between different theories and hypothesis, things get off-kilter. Think of an engine whose parts are misaligned and fastened incorrectly, whose parts are not made for a mutual fit.
ID puts parts in the engine of science that weren’t made for them. Doesn’t matter what the person putting them in thinks about the need to have those parts there, or what they intend to do. The engine just won’t work right.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2005 05:58 PMLiberal backed organizations are trying to destroy this country, and everything it has ever stood for. Liberal judges are abusing our court system. Put enough liberal’s in charge, and this country will go down. Take GOD out, and you take us all out.
Have you ever seen a trash can full of precious little aborted babies? The nightmares will not go away. My punishment for supporting abortion, and the liberal party. Shame on me!
Open your eyes to reality before it’s too late.
Posted by: no denial here at November 29, 2005 06:03 PMRoger Waun - thank you. I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote, but think I also alluded to some of those points (ie. when I said “of course not all [fundamentalists]”).
Jo, your paranoia about the big, bad secular humanists makes no sense whatsoever. Many people of ALL faiths as well as many of no faith are committed to the principle of separation of church and state. It’s a fundamental basis of our society, period.
You’re also wrong in that Dobson, et al have not had a direct, negative impact on our society. Because of their ridiculous whining and successful PR efforts, we have, among other problems an FCC run amok infringing on our society’s first amendment rights.
I do not speak for what you may have experienced elsewhere, but for crying out loud here in American your religion or any other is not under assault by any means. Why is it that laws that prohibit the involuntary imposition of religion on others is seen, ironically, as an assault on that religion? It’s a ridiculous and selfish argument.
Posted by: roger at November 29, 2005 06:11 PMi am pro science.
i am for separation of church and state.
Our public schools are mandated by our government, the state, to teach from a Secular Humanist perspective.
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit
- Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality.
- Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell
And absolutely NONE of these out of the gate tenets of Secular Humanism can be proven by science.
- Science DEMANDS objectivity,
- Science DEMANDS open-mindedness and
- Science DEMANDS evidence before claiming as fact.
i do not support teaching Creationism in Public Schools. i do not know about ID; but certainly not at this time to the depth and extent evolution should be. i do not support teaching religion in public schools except as a FACT of human historical experience in cultures and civilizations around the globe.
i DO SUPPORT teaching in the public schools
the POSSIBILITY of spiritual things,
the POSSIBILITY there is a God/gods
the FACT science has not DISproved either.
SECULAR HUMANISM, according to Merriam-Webster
HUMANIST BELIEFS AND PRACTICES, according to religioustolerance.org
jo, Merriam Webster’s definition is bunk.
Secular humanism is NOT a religion AT ALL.
Wikipedia’s definition however, is right on the money:
Secular humanism is that branch of philosophy that advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and a presumption of equality within a worldview centered upon human beings. The term was originally coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from “Christian humanism”. A perhaps less confrontational synonym is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson termed “the only world-view compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature” 1 Secular humanism is distinguished from the broader category of humanism in that the secular humanist prefers free inquiry over dogmatic wisdom€”upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting revealed knowledge and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith.
And:
The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.” The earliest documented use of the phrase “secular humanism” was in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.” Such footnotes, known as obiter dicta, are simply the personal observations of the judge, and hence are only incidental to reaching the opinion. It was later clarified by the court that the term does not refer to a religion. The term was seized upon by religious fundamentalists, often to cast humanists as anti-religious.
I think it’s time you give your religiously biased intolerance a wee bit of a rest, don’t you?
Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods
Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit
Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality.
Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell
I have no idea where you get your information Jo, but: 1. This is purely YOUR own idea of what Secular Humanism is, nothing more. 2. I’d be amazed if you could find a single public school in the US where these ideas are rejected as you indicate above.
Religion IS taught in public schools as a fact of human historical experience in social studies and philosophy classes. What’s the problem there?
I followed your link to Merriam-Webster:
Secular Humanism (noun): humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion. Did you not read the “viewed as” part? Beside which, again you seem to create this monolithic secular humanist group out of nowhere.
These unfair and silly accusations of anti-christianity you make against the left, the democrats, secular humanists or whatever else group you seem not to like are simply not founded on any reality.
Thanks Adrienne. Ditto.
Jo, one more thing. I have not accused you of pushing creationism or disputing science. I have accused you of making up arguments against those of us on the left who may or may not share your faith in god.
Posted by: roger at November 29, 2005 09:00 PMfrom The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
secular humanism
n.
An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
————————————————————-
From WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
secular humanism
n : the doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
————————————————————-
Sorry, i do not have access to the elusive Secular Humanist dictionary of the english language. If you have a link, please share with the rest of us.. and provide to the public schools under its curricula.
An excerpt from your wiki quote, emphasis my own:
A perhaps less confrontational synonym is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson termed €œthe only world-view compatible with science€™s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature€ 1 Secular humanism is distinguished from the broader category of humanism in that the secular humanist prefers free inquiry over dogmatic wisdom⦣x20AC;€upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting revealed knowledge and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith.
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit
- Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality.
- Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell
… Are taken from my second link HUMANIST BELIEFS AND PRACTICES at religioustolerance.org
- Science DEMANDS objectivity,
- Science DEMANDS open-mindedness and
- Science DEMANDS evidence before claiming as fact.
Are my personal opinions as is the thought that as the rejection of the spiritual and og God are NOT based on science, they are BELIEFS and one world view or set of beliefs established by the state is unconstitutional. i do not suggest that my beliefs be taught in our schools to the exclusion of yours. i do not advocate that you be denied your right to choose and think, believe and express yourself according to your own conscience. i do however have a problem with Secular Humanist beliefs being forced on impressionable children by the power of the state TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.
Posted by: jo at November 29, 2005 10:35 PMOur country is partly founded on the existance of God. This is part of our backbone. Liberal based people are trying to destroy this structure.
Posted by: no denial here at November 29, 2005 11:19 PMchristian and non-christian states? scares me.
Posted by: charlie wyckoff at November 29, 2005 11:21 PMjo,
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS the existence of God/gods
- Secular Humanisn REJECTS that there is soul and spirit
- Secular Humanism REJECTS spirituality
- Secular Humanist REJECTS the existence of a heaven/hell
Since we’re getting caught up on definitions here…. In this discussion of the meaning of secular humanism, you are getting too caught up on the word “Reject”.
Let’s look at some of the meanings of the word “reject”, using your own source, WordNet 2.0:
- refuse to accept or acknowledge
- deem wrong or inappropriate
- dismiss from consideration or a contest
Using the above meanings of “reject”, we can say that religion in public schools is inappropriate (because of the separation of church and state), and thus should not be acknowledged and should be dismissed from consideration.
If you don’t get hung up on how bad the word “rejects” sounds (which is only used in some definitions anyway), then you’re left with a much tamer meaning than you’re attributing to secular humanism. In no way does the definition mean that the existence of God or heaven and hell is being disputed, as you claim.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 30, 2005 12:17 AMCharles,
Good point. Dismiss and reject can be taken a number of ways and i took it in a more negative way than some may have intended to express.
However…
In no way does the definition mean that the existence of God or heaven and hell is being disputed, as you claim.
Some quotes taken from just the very first short post of this thread:
- untainted by religion and its misrepresentations
- Granted, science doesn’t have the answer to everything. But that doesn’t mean fantasy automatically fills the holes; religion only provides comfort in dealing with the unknown.
- people’s right to deal with the unknown how they saw fit, in the privacy of their own homes or places of worship.
- “This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that.”
- moronic decisions made by subsidized people
- shouldn€™t be surprised that these people can’t understand this concept
- manipulating children with religious gobble-dee-gook
- people [atheists/secular humanists etc] who contribute to society at a higher rate than the average citizen
- tainted by religious influence
Such condescending bias and bigotted language causes me to consider Secular Humanism as tolerant of religion as right wing fundamentalists are to gay marriage. The language of communication is strikingly similar.
Posted by: jo at November 30, 2005 02:29 AMWhy all this talk of secular humanism and its evils? Fear. Plain and simple. I think it’s unwarranted.
The ancients couldn’t know what we know now, so they represented creation and God their way, in terms of their culture. This doesn’t mean that the creation stories don’t say something true in their heart about God’s creative capacities, and about our place and condition in that creation. It just means it’s not going to be true in the documentary or factual sense that’s only become important to folks in the last couple centuries.
For religion, understanding these texts that way is foolish, because they weren’t written with that in mind. I had an epiphany while in a religion survey class, while hearing a professor talk about how the ancient worldview worked into the creation myths. It suddenly occurred to me that all this rationalization that both the more secular and the more fundamentalist of camps pile on the scriptures misses the point of the stories.
These scriptures were written by a particular culture to give their insight into the nature of God. Being orally transmitted before their writing, these stories were not written by eyewitnesses, nor researched from written material. On the whole, they were related from person to person because of the meaning they contained. Taken from this perspective, theories about how real-life disasters might have influenced what eventually was written down are interesting, but not crucial to interpreting these scriptures. Taken from that perspective, it’s unnecessary to prove that scriptures are factually or scientifically based, because the people at the time had no training or discipline to understand things that way, and it wasn’t their purpose to begin with.
We don’t just exist as rational creatures, and our understanding of the world can never be fully based on logic. We’re messy, complex, and how we deal with each other socially, ethically, legally, and spiritually involves an entirely different skillset from how we deal with the disciplines that allow us to clarify the world around us.
Even if we were to apply strict, reductionist thinking to the matters that religion covers, we would get into what authors Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen call “Ant Country”, where the massive number of independent variables and contributing factors would create a hopelessly complex mess to figure out and anticipate.
In terms of life’s development, there’s no need of the intrusion of some supernatural element, at least not in any way that would rupture causality. Those same authors have written a couple of works The Collapse of Chaos And Figments of Reality, that posit that the way the systems interact in nature can sometime create effects unpredictable from the reduced elements in isolation. In short, life could arise naturally, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Chemicals can catalyze reactions between each other, creating feedback loops of increasing complexity. They would actually go so far as to claim that our intelligence is one form of that complexity, a privilege that allows our species to counter what they would call “The Grim Sower”, or life’s relentless willingness to throw offspring into the system knowing that many of them will get killed or fail to reproduce.
Where does my religion fall in all this? I believe that we’re dealing with a creator far superior to ourselves in mind and the complexity of his intelligence. Any creator able to fit a world as complex and mind-numbling interlocked as ours surely can’t make any mistakes we could appreciate as such. A perfect God cannot make a world with seams such inferior creatures like ourselves could understand on our own, much less prove. I’m afraid that the more we look, the more we will find that the universe is a masterpiece of seamless integration.
We should not be making a Babel Tower of science by trying to find evidence of God. That’s only our vanity working, as we try to prove to all the non-believers that God exists by calling on the authority of science. Worse, it disrupts the very mechanism that gives science its authority- its discipline, and ability to toss discredited theories aside. Folks try to cloak ID and Creation science in the context of revolutionary science, but they miss the fact that all those revolutionary theories had to prove themselves before they became mainstream.
Worse yet, they miss the most harmful aspect of trying to tie science to religion: Science unbroken habit of breaking theories into obsolescence. What happens if, for a short period of time, they manage to convince people of a theory that ties the development of the universe into God’s presence…
…and then somebody disproves that theory? Not only could that happen, but it already has happened. The error here, the sin if I say so, is making an idol of a theory, justifying people’s belief in God not on the ineffable grace that each person feels, but instead on human logic and human-interpreted evidence.
I’d just as soon have people believe in God on faith, than gain them temporarily on bad science and destroy their faith in God when it’s debunked.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2005 10:15 AMjo,
Some quotes taken from just the very first short post of this thread:Agreed. I don’t blame you for viewing some of those posts as an attack against those with faith. I don’t speak for or defend those other posters or their words. The words are from individuals, however, and don’t necessarily define or represent the tenents of secular humanism…they only represent the poster’s opinion, however harsh.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 30, 2005 12:53 PM
Tim, re your comment “It offers the opportunity to discuss theory, and how some theories are accepted as factual due to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting the conclusion…”
It also offers an opportunity to nip a potential zealot in the bud by sending them to detention for disturbing the class.
Posted by: Kate at November 30, 2005 01:11 PM
