thepete.com
Damn, and I was just saying to my mom the other day that I respected McCain and might even vote for him if given the opportunity (credit goes to the Arizona Daily Star for the story that made me realize I should be paying more attention):
On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement.
McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.
The theory of intelligent design says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and that a higher power must have had a hand in guiding it.
No, no, no, no, NO. For the love of everything in this “sin-cursed world,” NO.
The danger of this latest outbreak of fuzzy-headed thinking is that, well, it all just sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? I mean, in these enlightened times of ours, what reactionary meanie would actually stand against our children being taught “all points of view”? Never mind that “intelligent design” is creationism’s reanimated corpse propped up and dressed in a nice new suit.
How the hell do you test a child’s grasp of ID, anyway? “God created the Earth. True/False?”
I implore all readers of this site to check out Talk Origins for more on evolution. It does a fine job explaining all that scary science stuff, as well as making it clear that evolutionary theory is not a Satan-spawned plot implemented by teeth-gnashing atheists.
9 Comments
ALL points of view? Good, because I have one I’d like to submit, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monster
It does a much better job of explaining creation than the so-called ‘Intelligent’ Design that gave us the appendix, wisdom teeth, a blind spot and heart valve failure.
So, I’m checking out the main FAQ at Talk.Origins and follow a link to the “Problems with a Global Flood FAQ”. The irony is that one question I can’t find on there is this: Why is it called a “Problems with a Global Flood FAQ” when it’s really a “Problems with the Story of Noah’s Ark FAQ”? You have to get a good way through the damn thing before the title begins to get accurate.
I guess my point is that I love it when people claiming to be the bearers of the rational arguments can’t even name things accurately. There are a couple of other things I have issue with, but I don’t want to get labelled a flat-Earther or anything. I will go on to say that the info at Talk.Origins is rather scatterbrained to me. I check out a FAQ and it assumes I already know a lot about things.
At best, I have to refer to other FAQs to get the info I need. More irony comes in when the FAQ on Catastrophism mentions Velikovsky but the FAQ on him is completely baffling. In short, all of the things I wanted to read about expected me to already know what the hell they were, making a FAQ a bit useless–especially since the number one question on all of them should have been “What is XYZ?” where “XYZ” is the topic of the FAQ. Sure, some seem to do this, but most of the FAQs I checked out don’t. Seems like a pretty basic flaw to me. Again, it’s all dripping with ironic goodness considering these are supposed to be the guys with the right answers.
What the folks at Talk.Origins need to do is transfer all of their info to a wiki so people can search for entries that explain stuff instead of having to sift through scores of giant lists of questions hoping to find the one they are looking for.
I *LOVE* Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, however. I think I’ve finally found my faith!!
I personally don’t see what is wrong with intelligent design; one doesn’t need to believe in Chrisitianity or any other religion to believe that a higher power created the universe; I mean there was a point where I myself didn’t belive in Christianity, but I still believed and still do believe there are powers that did in fact create the universe, and it is almost impossible to comprehend the exact precision the the true design of everything. I don’t see what is wrong with kids being able to express that in a classroom; I mean, I do believe in aspects of evolution, but I don’t believe that everything evolved from microscopic organisms. The universe is too precise and too well designed to have just “came into being”; something had to set that in motion, which is what I believe God did; if not God, then some kind of higher power. Some people may not believe that, that is fine, but I don’t think it is a bad thing to expose people to it; that is what I have a problem with with the school system, they try to shove things down your throat and can’t let you make a decision on what you believe, they try to tell you what to believe.
Morgan– to put it simply, ID is not a testable hypothesis. A belief in God cannot be falsified. ID is not science; therefore, it does not belong in a science classroom. Additionally, while you’re welcome to hold the beliefs that you expressed in your post, keep in mind that rigorous scientific inquiry demands that we don’t just throw up our hands and say, “Well, shit, the universe sure is complex, so I’m just going to assume that God did everything.”
As for “shoving things down people’s throats,” what on Earth do you think the proponents of ID are trying to do? Their motive is not to make science education more rigorous, but to introduce a narrow, Christian-centered view of the universe. The second anyone wanted to *truly* expose kids to different ideas by teaching them the Muslim or Hindu version of the creation of the universe as well, IDers would raise holy hell.
I apologize if I sound ranty, but again, matters of faith should not be discussed in a science classroom. Comparitive Religion, theology, even folklore if you’re a real cynic, but perpetuating ID in science class is intellectually lazy and does a disservice to young people.
Pete– considering that Talk Origins was cobbled together from some kind of listserv, I’m not surprised that it’s scattershot in parts.
It’s a good resource, and the one I always point people to, but they could probably reach a lot more people (very important!) if they cleaned it up and made it more accessible.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “Global Flood” thing, though. The Noah’s Ark story is just that– a tale of a global flood.
Morgan, as Jen said, you’ve got a right to believe what you want. Schools, however, aren’t for teaching beliefs–they’re for teaching kids how to function in society. Religion is not required for functioning in society. Knowledge of math, English and science is. The idea of intelligent design is a religious belief because, again as Jen said, it’s not a scientifically proveable theory.
If I can get into this argument just a bit, I’d like to point out that the universe is not a very precise or exact machine. If it was, life would exist on every planet in the universe and we’d have “made by God” stamped on our asses. Because there are not easy explanations for every thing that exists, it’s not logical to suggest a God created it. What practical reason would a god have to create the universe as he did? Do we just chalk it up to the pre-Iraq-Attack Bush argument so many people used? That Bush/God has intelligence we’re not aware of? I’m an Atheist because I don’t like the idea of having blind faith in a “higher” power. I’m not saying the universe just blinked randomly into existence–to me, that’s as absurd an argument as God creating everything intentionally the way He wanted it to be. In my observation, the universe seems to be programmed to create patterns. I’m not willing to say that the universe was programmed by a “higher” power because, frankly, the universe moves pretty friggin’ slowly and makes a lot of mistakes.
The thing that bugs me the most about the whole evolution vs. creationsim/ID argument is that they don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Nothing in evolution says God couldn’t be behind evolution. Christians/religious folks have the ultimate perfect excuse to write God in as the author of every good and bad movie–”He works in mysterious ways.”
So, can’t God be behind evolution?
Aside from that pesky Bible telling us the story of Adam and Eve, I think, if He exists, He could be behind it.
Ultimately the two arguments of Evolution and Creationism/ID should never go head-to-head. It’s like arguing apples and oranges–or worse–apples and automobiles. Each argument is meant to provide a person with different types of information. One argument provides the physical, scientific realities of life while the other provides a spiritual story that helps put life into context. It would make more sense to argue evolution against the idea that we were all created by an alien scientist who mixed us together in a tube and left us on Earth to fend for ourselves. Of course, there’s no evidence of that, but it’s at least something tangible and evidence could one day be found of it being true.
On the other hand, Creationism/ID is unproveable (sp?). God has never shown us hard and fast evidence of his existence and I can’t imagine why he ever would. (And no, I don’t consider a religious leader from 2000 years ago claiming to be the son of God to be proof.) He’s got billions of followers around the world, why bother with proof? He doesn’t need it. Again, it’s like America going into Iraq. WMD evidence? Why bother? Also, the Creationism/ID arguments shouldn’t go up against science arguments, they should go up against other religion’s explanations for life. Like Creationism Vs. Xenu from Scientology or something.
It just all seems like you’re comparing Battlestar Galactica to Martha Stewart when trying to judge what the better TV show is.
Oh and Jen, I was looking for scientific arguments against a global flood, I don’t give a rat’s ass about plot holes in the story of Noah’s Ark, which is pretty much what their FAQ on a Global Flood is.
Pete– ah, I see what you mean (re the Talk Origins FAQ).
Good post, BTW.
“But what if this is just The Matrix, dude?”
Let’s just all agree:
We don’t know where we came from, where we go when we die, or whether or not the Universe is guided by intellects “vast, cool, and indifferent” or warm and fuzzy.
God can be behind evolution — and s/he can’t. S/He’s God. Paradox permitted.
Doesn’t debating unknowables drive you crazy?
Does me.
Well, you probably shouldn’t venture into it, then.
Afterall, many people on this planet would argue that you’re wrong, that we do know where we came from, where we go when we die and so on. That’s the problem. School should be for things that aren’t terribly debatable–at least in my opinion. :)
Post a Comment