Intelligent Design?
I've been reading news reports, blogs, and the like for the last two or three days on the recent Dover ID decision. While I could say a lot of things about this, there is really only one thing that I think I need to say: the whole argument being voleyed from side to side about ID seems woefully ignorant of ID itself. I've read the book Intelligent Design by William Dembski of Irving, TX twice; once as part of a philosophy curriculum at DBU and once again last year over Christmas break. I can assure you that neither time did the book ever tell me that Intelligent Design, as a theory, is religious. It is surely true that the proponents of Intelligent Design are religious, at least most of them, and it is also surely true that Intelligent Design can be religious if you make the claim that God, or some supernatural force, is the Intelligent Designer: but Intelligent Design does not require any of this and is based on none of it. The entire ID theory is based on a mathematical equation that determines a cut-off point for how specifically complex something can reasonably be before it can no longer be considered the product of random events or occurences. God isn't part of the theory. ID is just as satisfied by the notion that aliens from Phaelon planted us here as it is with any form of religious Creationism, or even atheism. God is not necessary for the ID theory.
Now my point of view on Intelligent Design is unimportant, and I'm not making a statement as to whether or not it is science or whether or not it should be taught in public schools. What I am saying is that ID doesn't require any religious content whatsoever. Just because the proponents of the theory are deeply religious, and are creationists doesn't mean that the theory itself is colored with those principles. Does the fact that most rap music is composed by African Americans mean that one must be black to listen to the music? Does the fact that the majority of hispanics are catholic mean that mexican food is religious? This whole argument has been eerily clouded from the fundamental confusion that ID must be religious, and more specifically associated with Christian fundamentalism.
posted by Seamus at 4:32 PM
11 Comments:
Well, I sort of agree with you and I sort of don't. I think that while it's true that Intelligent Design does not require a Christian God (or religious content at all), it's not so easy to dismiss the fact that proponents of Intelligent Design are almost entirely Christian. I think it's hard to ignore the people who are pushing it, or wonder what their motives really are. It's only being prudent when someone tells you something, to wonder who they are and why they're telling you that.
9:16 PM
I'm honestly surprised at your comment, xanthippas. I've heard the argument from the left many times now that "personal beliefs don't get in the way of politics or science, or such". I seriously doubt that you would claim that your own religious beliefs somehow make you less scientific or politically slanted.
Why is the "right" not afforded the same graces?
12:36 PM
It's not that I don't think that there are individuals who are non-religious or non-christian who believe in ID. Nor do I think it's impossible to believe in ID independent of your religious beliefs. However, I do think that since for the most part there is so little substance to ID, scientifically speaking at least, that leads me to presume that many people are proponents of it largely because it suits their particular religious ideology. To me it's akin to me trying to claim something absurd like all Republicans lack genes for compassion; clearly that belief is absurd, and I would be holding it because it suits my liberal ideology. But I could just as easily deny that and claim that it's a "fact" that I've proven with various theorems and research. I wouldn't say that I don't afford people on the right the same "grace" to assert that their beliefs are not ideologically motivated. But I reserve the right to make an independent judgment as to the quality of that belief.
6:01 AM
If your problem with ID is with its science, why not attack it on scientific grounds? Why resort to character assassination of all the Christian proponents by hinting that their religious views automatically make them suspect, uneducated, or incapable of logical science or conclusions?
This brings me back to the statement that ID is not religious. Perhaps you'd like the challenge the Theory of Information that ID rests on by pointing out a logical fallacy, or a faulty mathematical proposition, or by somehow challenging the probability equation illustrated in Dembski's book.
It isn't fair to rebut criticism on a scientific view by ruling that criticism "out of court" simply because one, or half, or all of the proponents hold to a certain religion. This is something I thought we would agree on.
10:25 AM
I would agree with you except that it's not merely "one or half" of the proponents of ID who are religious. Most, if not the vast majority, are religious, and the vast majority of those are Christian. If in fact ID is not "religious" then how is it that the vast majority of those who are proponents of it are in fact of a certain religion? I don't think that it's proponents are necessarily uneducated or incapable of logical conclusions, but I do think that since it's most vocal proponents are of a certain religious background, that does in fact make it suspect.
And of course you know I'm incapable of challenging the "science" that ID rests upon. That makes it only that much more important to know where the people who are it's proponents are coming from. That knowledge, and the consensus of scientists in general, are what allow me to make a judgment of various "controversial" claims, such as ID, or that there's no global warming, etc. Knowing where people are coming from, as well as what the consensus is on their ideas in whatever relevant community they belong to (science, politics, etc., as well as using my own personal judgment, is how I judge the validity of many claims that I read or hear about, and I do it for those coming from every direction, so I hope I can't be accused of some anti-religious/anti-Christian bias.
8:56 PM
Well, if what you want to talk about is the assumption by the anti-ID folks that ID is necessarily linked with religion and more specifically Christian fundamentalism, I guess I would say that you're right in that the two are not necessarily linked. ID is not, in fact, dependent on the Christian God as part of the hypothesis. However, you cannot assume that because it is not necessarily associated with these things, that it is not. As a matter of fact, I would say that that is a false claim. There are, I know, non-Christian advocates of ID. There are probably those who believe that the "Designer" in the ID hypothesis is an alien. It is still misleading to act or speak as if this is a non-Christian movement. It is most definitely propounded by people who believe in the Christian God and especially those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible, (ergo Christian fundamentalists), and these are the ones who are making the most vigorous efforts to insert ID into school curricula.
Therefore, I don't think the argument has been clouded at all by the basic assumption that ID is simply creationism in pseudo-intellectual guise, because that's pretty much what it is for those who support it and those who oppose it. Thus, it's not wrong not to argue ID on its scientific merits when many of those who support it aren't even familiar with the basic tenets of ID, nor are they overly concerned with them. The vast majority of supporters are those who believe that the Designer is, in fact, God. We are, defacto, arguing over whether or not to teach God in schools because that is exactly what one side supports and the other opposes.
Basically, it's not useful to really talk about the scientific merits of ID because neither side really cares. Even though you can demonstrate that ID is not really science, that hasn't convinced anyone that I know not to believe in a literal creation story.
4:23 PM
Nat, I don't see why you attempt to speak for both sides of the argument when you clearly stand squarely on one side, and one side only.
If you feel like you can demonstrate that "ID is not science" then go ahead, let's talk about it. Otherwise, I see no reason to acknowledge your omniscience.
What I think you have yet to demonstrate is anything but anti-Christian sentiments when ID is not even Christian to being with. It only makes sense that people with a Christian world view are more open to criticism of naturalism by default. And it likewise makes sense that people with a naturalistic worldview are less open to such criticism. What disturbs me about this whole controversy is that "science", or "scientists", have some strange court-acknowledged power to throw out criticism that they don't like simply by labelling its followers as religious.
Address a criticism of naturalism on scientific grounds. The religion, or race, or sexual preference, or whatever of the adherents is purely irrelevant. If the criticism is so easy to deflect then do it and be on with your life, why resort to character assassination (as I said before)? If naturalism is so invincible, then what is there to fear? Why the visceral reaction?
Perhaps I should likewise reject your statement entirely, not based on what you said of course, but on the fact that you are part native american.
7:35 PM
Well, I am on one side of the argument. Are you saying that means I can't even comprehend the other side or represent it fairly? Ah, wait, you're saying that because I hold beliefs opposite to those you believe, you can't accept the validity any of my arguments as applied to your side. But wasn't your point that the same is done to ID by the anti-ID camp? I thought you said that such an stance has no merit. I guess you'll have to take my argument for what it's worth anyway.
You didn't ask anyone to talk about ID on its merits. If that's what you want, write a new post or we'll get it going in emails. I'm fine with either. You asked why anti-ID people dismiss the ID argument based on who supports it.
Again, you say ID isn't Christian to begin with, yet you're talking about a book by a Christian who believes God created the world. He doesn't say God in his book, but he's not talking about something else. Why would an someone who thinks evolution is wrong and God created life write a book about how aliens could have come here and created life? The only reason he didn't use the word God is to cover his bias, and because he also thinks it may have been angels or some other agent or power of God. I can find you at least one quote where he specifically says so.
And again, you speak as if this debate is over ID rather than the alredy-known creationism. You may think I don't know what I'm talking about and that's fine, but from the people I've talked to (on either side) and all sorts of statemtents by people in published pieces, I feel confident that ID is only being pushed by the one side as a more plausible-sounding version of creationism.
Again, the details of ID don't seem to matter to many people on either side. You don't have to take that for truth, but it's easy enough to get more information on and decide for yourself. You don't have to turn against ID simply because you find out that all sorts of people who are for it are basically ignorant of it. That's why this debate focuses so much on the character of the people supporting it, because a fair analysis will lead you to the obvious conclusion: Christians (for the most part) support ID because they view it as a more scientific theory of creationism.
Look, it may not be fair to dismiss ID because of who supports it, but try and look at it like this: propenents are pushing it because they want to teach God in school, opponents are blocking it because they don't want God taught in school. I think that's pretty much the nature of the debate. ID is just lost in the shuffle.
8:18 AM
It may be true that the Dover schoolboard's motives were religious, I don't really know if they were or not. Regardless of what they may have put in their curriculum, however, ID has no problems or conflicts with evolution. I know of some people who believe in evolution, and ascribe to ID because they believe that some intelligent force had to start the whole process. You could call that theistic evolution, deism, or even agnosticism or atheism.
What has bothered me all along in this issue has been the categorical dismissal of ID because it is potentially tainted with Christianity. I don't mean that anyone on this blog has said as much in so many words, but plenty of news sites and articles have. The idea that science can turn away whatever criticism it likes by mocking your religion disgusts me thoroughly.
3:17 PM
Well, guilty on both sides though. Evolution isn't argued scientifically by the vast majority of Christians, it's argued based on their religious beliefs. To paraphrase your words, what has bothered me all along in this issue has been the categorical dismissal of evolutionary theory because it is potentially tainted with secularism.
I'm not mocking you, I feel your pain. When I talk with Christians about it, most of them know little about evolution and care less to learn anything. They obviously can't argue the merits of it because they know nothing about it. They dismiss any rational arguments supporting evolution because they don't include God, and in their view if it doesn't include God, it can't be true.
My point is that there is guilt on both sides. I leave it to you to decide how much guilt that is.
10:28 PM
I have no problem admitting that certain people are guilty on both sides, but the "categorical dismissal" isn't so strong on the ID side. As I said, plenty of ID people believe in evolution.
2:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home