Tuesday, August 09, 2005
idiots and intelligent design
Earlier today, I happened to leave the radio on while I was washing some dishes. The host was nattering on about "intelligent design" and how she just couldn't imagine a world this complex evolving randomly. She then went on to question why the "theory" was not taught in science classes alongside evolution.
This is my problem with those who want schools to teach intelligent design in biology classes: They are morons.
It has been several centuries since science, religion and philosophy ceased to be one discipline. In the meantime, each of these areas has developed and expanded upon its own methods of inquiry. Science depends upon experimentation and repeatable physical demonstration. Philosophy uses argument from facts already accepted. Religion deals in certainty and articles of faith. Science is never certain of anything, because it allows for the possible discovery of new evidence in the future. In science, even the law of gravity is a theory. Philosophy hates to become certain of anything because it is most interested in arguments rather than conclusions.
As a Catholic Christian, I firmly believe that the evolutionary process was guided by the hand of God -- not just a theoretical "intelligence," but the actual God of the old and new testaments, the father portion of the triune "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." My theology may be weak here; maybe the designer is actually the holy spirit. In any case, the idea that the power behind our creation is somewhere in the trinity is an established belief for me and not a theory.
I also believe that God used the process of evolution to effect that creation. I honestly can't remember whether or not I studied evolution in high school biology (science wasn't my most attentive subject) but since whenever it was that I encountered the theory, it has made sense to me. Similarly, I don't remember when anyone sat down with me and told me about God. As far as I can recall, he's just always been there, maybe as a function of a species-specific memory that I was born with, or maybe my parents just modeled their faith exceptionally well.
By the way, there is no way that the god I grew up with would have left evidence for evolution all over the world and then demanded we ignore his evidence. He gave us higher intelligence so we could use it to glorify him, not so we could concentrate on being ignorant. As a parent, it is important to me that my kids make maximum use of their talents and intellectual abilities. That is at least as important as having them obey me. The dog obeys me (most of the time) but that doesn't make him a more effective human being than -- well, a human being.
These are things I believe, by which I mean that I am sure they are true. I don't need proof. When people get up in front of me and claim any of this is not true, I either ignore them, or maybe pray silently for their enlightenment. If I think others are being swayed by a speaker's wrong views I might get up and argue, but in general I think God is strong enough to handle that sort of thing himself. He has access to their hearts, while at best I've only got their ears.
Religion is all about conclusions. In religion we tend to argue backwards from what we know to be true as a result of our faith. True faith is not shaken by a lack of evidence. Science and philosophy, on the other hand, cannot exist without evidence. Unlike pure creationism, then, intelligent design functions more like a philosophy than a religious position. In and of itself, it is a compelling philosophical argument, but it is not science. Science deals with "how" questions and leaves the "why" to religion and philosophy.
Intelligent design is the answer -- I believe the correct answer -- to the question of why the world is the way it is. Evolution is the answer to how God did it. The "how" belongs in science classes. The "why" does not. There is no evidence to disprove the belief that volcanoes are caused by the moods of the Hawaiian goddess Pele, but we don't expect teachers to give that explanation equal time in geology class. Pele's moods are a "why" answer, and so is intelligent design.
As bad as my memory is, I am certain that my high school science teacher had nothing to do with my own belief in God. That wasn't his job. In the town where I grew up, in 1974, no one I knew thought it was the job of a science teacher to strengthen his students' faith in God. I'm all for giving students more training in philosophy, logic, and techniques of argumentation -- what used to be called rhetoric. If nothing else, this debate about evolution and intelligent design shows that Americans are widely deficient in those areas.
Just don't try to teach it instead of science.
This is my problem with those who want schools to teach intelligent design in biology classes: They are morons.
It has been several centuries since science, religion and philosophy ceased to be one discipline. In the meantime, each of these areas has developed and expanded upon its own methods of inquiry. Science depends upon experimentation and repeatable physical demonstration. Philosophy uses argument from facts already accepted. Religion deals in certainty and articles of faith. Science is never certain of anything, because it allows for the possible discovery of new evidence in the future. In science, even the law of gravity is a theory. Philosophy hates to become certain of anything because it is most interested in arguments rather than conclusions.
As a Catholic Christian, I firmly believe that the evolutionary process was guided by the hand of God -- not just a theoretical "intelligence," but the actual God of the old and new testaments, the father portion of the triune "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." My theology may be weak here; maybe the designer is actually the holy spirit. In any case, the idea that the power behind our creation is somewhere in the trinity is an established belief for me and not a theory.
I also believe that God used the process of evolution to effect that creation. I honestly can't remember whether or not I studied evolution in high school biology (science wasn't my most attentive subject) but since whenever it was that I encountered the theory, it has made sense to me. Similarly, I don't remember when anyone sat down with me and told me about God. As far as I can recall, he's just always been there, maybe as a function of a species-specific memory that I was born with, or maybe my parents just modeled their faith exceptionally well.
By the way, there is no way that the god I grew up with would have left evidence for evolution all over the world and then demanded we ignore his evidence. He gave us higher intelligence so we could use it to glorify him, not so we could concentrate on being ignorant. As a parent, it is important to me that my kids make maximum use of their talents and intellectual abilities. That is at least as important as having them obey me. The dog obeys me (most of the time) but that doesn't make him a more effective human being than -- well, a human being.
These are things I believe, by which I mean that I am sure they are true. I don't need proof. When people get up in front of me and claim any of this is not true, I either ignore them, or maybe pray silently for their enlightenment. If I think others are being swayed by a speaker's wrong views I might get up and argue, but in general I think God is strong enough to handle that sort of thing himself. He has access to their hearts, while at best I've only got their ears.
Religion is all about conclusions. In religion we tend to argue backwards from what we know to be true as a result of our faith. True faith is not shaken by a lack of evidence. Science and philosophy, on the other hand, cannot exist without evidence. Unlike pure creationism, then, intelligent design functions more like a philosophy than a religious position. In and of itself, it is a compelling philosophical argument, but it is not science. Science deals with "how" questions and leaves the "why" to religion and philosophy.
Intelligent design is the answer -- I believe the correct answer -- to the question of why the world is the way it is. Evolution is the answer to how God did it. The "how" belongs in science classes. The "why" does not. There is no evidence to disprove the belief that volcanoes are caused by the moods of the Hawaiian goddess Pele, but we don't expect teachers to give that explanation equal time in geology class. Pele's moods are a "why" answer, and so is intelligent design.
As bad as my memory is, I am certain that my high school science teacher had nothing to do with my own belief in God. That wasn't his job. In the town where I grew up, in 1974, no one I knew thought it was the job of a science teacher to strengthen his students' faith in God. I'm all for giving students more training in philosophy, logic, and techniques of argumentation -- what used to be called rhetoric. If nothing else, this debate about evolution and intelligent design shows that Americans are widely deficient in those areas.
Just don't try to teach it instead of science.
Comments:
<< Home
Yes indeed. I especially like the paragraphy beginning -- ...By the way, there is no way that the god I grew up with would have left evidence for evolution...and then demanded we ignore this evidence...
Nice. Well said altogether and especially (for me) this section. Anonymous
Nice. Well said altogether and especially (for me) this section. Anonymous
# posted by 
: 12:17 PM
: 12:17 PM
Did you hear the one about the woman who went into a restaurant and was told "sorry, we cant serve anyone in pants." So she took them off.
Logic? Yes.
But not what the rule-makers had in mind. My point is - some people are obsessed with RULES. Not always logical.
I agree with your arguments. There is a place for Intelligent Design. But not as an alternative to evolutionary theory or other hypotheses necessary to scientific research theories. Is that what you said? Hope so.
Logic? Yes.
But not what the rule-makers had in mind. My point is - some people are obsessed with RULES. Not always logical.
I agree with your arguments. There is a place for Intelligent Design. But not as an alternative to evolutionary theory or other hypotheses necessary to scientific research theories. Is that what you said? Hope so.
# posted by : 7:27 PM
: 7:27 PM
Much that you say is true, but your tone strikes me as somewhat angry and intolerant. The int/design advocates crave recognition bcs they feel looked down on, even made fun of by the educated know-it-alls who have been lording it over them for so long. We have all sorts of denigrating names for them: rednecks, fundamentalists, evangelists, Joe six-pack, born-agains, NASCAR patriots, booboisie, etc. They know what we think of them (how could they not?) and it pisses them off. Now they have their guy in the White House, and they're going to show us who's really in charge by taking away our porn, our pills, our sexual privacy, and our elitist schools. So we have to cut them some slack. If they want to go beyond Darwin to explain Nicole Kidman's good looks, why fight them over it? All they want is respect. So while I agree with your debating points, I fear that your tone will not win many converts.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 9:50 PM
: 9:50 PM << Home
