Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Widespread Ignorance

By Sam Harris, Huffington Post. Posted August 10, 2005.


Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. And since Bush's endorsement of 'intelligent design,' the battle between faith and reason is growing stronger.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sam Harris

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

President Bush has endorsed the pseudo-scientific notion of "intelligent design" (ID) and declared it to be a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution. This is not surprising, as he has always maintained that "the jury is still out" on the question of evolution.

But the jury is not out -- indeed it was well in before President Bush was even born -- and anyone familiar with modern biology knows that ID is nothing more than a program of political and religious advocacy masquerading as science.

It is for this reason that the scientific community has been divided on just how (or whether) to dignify the spurious claims of ID "theorists" with a response. While understandable, I believe that such scruples are now misplaced. The Trojan Horse has passed the innermost gates of the city, and scary religious imbeciles are now spilling out.

According to several recent polls, 22 percent of Americans are certain that Jesus will return to earth sometime in the next fifty years. Another 22 percent believe that he will probably do so. This is likely the same 44 percent who go to church once a week or more, who believe that God literally promised the land of Israel to the Jews, and who want to stop teaching our children about the biological fact of evolution.

As the President is well aware, believers of this sort constitute the most cohesive and motivated segment of the American electorate. Consequently, their views and prejudices now influence almost every decision of national importance.

Political liberals seem to have drawn the wrong lesson from these developments and are now thumbing scripture, wondering how best to ingratiate themselves to the legions of men and women in our country who vote mainly on the basis of religious dogma.

More than 50 percent of Americans have a "negative" or "highly negative" view of people who do not believe in God; 70 percent think it important for presidential candidates to be "strongly religious." Because it is taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs, political debate over questions of public policy (stem-cell research, the ethics of assisted suicide and euthanasia, obscenity and free speech, gay marriage, etc.) generally gets framed in terms appropriate to a theocracy. Unreason is now ascendant in the United States -- in our schools, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality. Likewise, Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" served only the religious dogmatists who realize, quite rightly, that there is only one magisterium.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Best Alternet Article in a loooong time.
Posted by: kittynboi on Aug 10, 2005 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is wonderful, and finally someone on the left fires back at the liberals who say we need to get religion. ITs also good to see a pro science article, even though it will no doubt upset the luddites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My dogma is better than your dogma
Posted by: estel on Aug 10, 2005 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I want to make it clear that I am not a Christian, nor a Republican, nor even American. I believe the fact of evolution is so obvious as to be beyond question, and I love useful technology. I agree that your current administration's stance on many "moral" questions is ridiculous and potentially extremely dangerous. But I don't think it is the correct response is to dimiss the (presumably) deeply held religious beliefs of a large proportion of the population out of hand. This is akin to Christian missionaries telling the "heathens" that they will all burn in Hell because they are worshipping false idols. They have their beliefs, you have yours. The problem, as I see it, is not belief in God, but the dogma. Rather than think for themselves they blindly accept what they are told by their religious leaders, which at the moment includes Mr. Bush. They believe the Bible to be the literal words and teachings of God, rather than a collection of writings of often politically motivated humans. Scientific "knowledge" is as much based on theorems, assumptions, and generally accepted understandings as religion is on blind faith. It used to be a scientifically understood fact that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Can you be sure that some other current fundamental scientific "belief" won't be found similarly ridiculous by future scientists? Both religion and science produce fanatical adherants that refuse to consider any opposing opinion. As you say, "...the unreasonable are certain to be divided by their dogmas". You seem to think your particular dogma gives you the right to dismiss those of people you don't agree with, which seems to be the very thing you are accusing the religious right of. Or have I missed the point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» my karma ran over your dogma Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: my karma ran over your dogma Posted by: helenwheels
Jim
Posted by: Jim on Aug 10, 2005 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't assuming intelligent design is wrong, because it differs
from one's own philosophy similar to assuming evolution is wrong because it differs from one's religion on the same level? Where can one find intelligent discussion, pro and con, on the arguments of intelligent design? Can
there be a discussion that does not start with the assumption that there is, or is not, some God that is active in the world?

Obviously we have no eyewitness (discounting the likes of
God's testimony in the Bible) of origins of life. I don't think we can ever scientifically be sure of origins - chance evolution or design (by a god, alien, or whatever).


Why should progressives attack ID or creationism? Should not believing in a god-designed creation logically produce a greater concern for treating the earth, the environment, and organisms including people with respect? Making allies with the religious seems a more likely way to
advance progressive agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jim Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: Jim Posted by: nakis
» RE: Jim Posted by: mazur
» RE: Jim Posted by: bgroat
» RE: Jim Posted by: Talon
» RE: Jim Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Jim Posted by: blue_stater
» RE: Jim Posted by: cul
» RE: Jim Posted by: mazur
» RE: Jim Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Jim Posted by: drmeow
» RE: Jim Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Jim Posted by: masterfran
» RE: Jim Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Jim Posted by: thorkummer
» RE: Jim Posted by: jsa9
Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: karyse on Aug 10, 2005 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding the statement that "22 percent of Americans believe that Jesus will return in the next 50 years" : I asked a friend of mine why she still believed in the "immenent" return (2000 years. after Jesus had said the THIS generation shall not pass...)

She quoted some passage about how no one knows the time, to which I responded, "How many years would have to go by before you abandoned the idea? 5000? 10,000? 20,000? After 20,000 years would you finally admit that Jesus ain't coming back?"

"I'd never give up my faith," she answered.

That's it in a nutshell. People will believe dumb ass ideas long after the time has passed to recognize that it can't be true.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith. Anyone can watch evolution at work by studying creatures or plants with short life cycles and "selecting" for a certain trait.

Did man descend from apes? It's a THEORY supported by the fact that we share 98 percent of our genes with Chimps. Can someone with AB Negaitve blood be descended from two parents who have O Positive blood? (If I remember my beginning science course correctly the answer is NO.) That's not a theory, that's a fact. Evolution belongs properly in the realm of science. Intelligent Design belongs nowhere, not even in church because "intelligent design" includes the possibility that aliens did it.

And by the way, I'm not committed to my example of the 0 Pos blood. I could be wrong and it wouldn't take much evidence to show me that I am wrong. I would easily abandon it as "truth." That is the beauty of science -- any claim can be tested and disproved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ain't gonna happen. Posted by: Guah
» RE: Ain't gonna happen. Posted by: sbaran
» The truth is out there? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: The truth is out there? Posted by: Royaras
A New Inquisition
Posted by: navistic50 on Aug 10, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is becoming a very scary place to live. I am having trouble telling the difference between now and the inquisition. The only difference these days is instead of outright killing the non-believers, they are labled and then scorned by the "God Fearing" idiots.

I stay disgusted most of the time these days. Disgusted at a populace that revels in it's ignorance. In fact, I can't remember a worse time in American history than right now.

And as usual, religion, instead of bringing people together is once again used to keep the masses in line.

This article is right on... and mirrors many of my thoughts and beliefs... If there ever was an Anti-Christ, I would have to say that it is religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A New Inquisition Posted by: Talon
» RE: A New Inquisition Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: A New Inquisition Posted by: Ellie1
Jules.
Posted by: Jules. on Aug 10, 2005 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coming from the least religious nation on the planet (the UK), I find the statistics on religion in the US provided in this article fascinating but, at the same time, baffling and frightening. In the UK, the majority of people have no religious afiliation whatsoever and many, if not most of us feel uncomfortable around overtly religious people. Religious people of all creeds are a small minority in the UK, and religion is seen as a personal and private thing that should not be pushed down other people's throats under any circumstances. Being overtly religious is seen in quite a negative light, and no more so than when the person expressing religious views is a politician. Tony Blair has been advised to play down his own Christianity wherever possible as it is a big turn off for British voters. I would be interested to read any views that people have as to why the current situation in the US is pretty much the opposite to in the UK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jules. Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: Jules. Posted by: Talon
» RE: Jules. Posted by: nittacci
» RE: Jules. Posted by: fairydancer
» Hemlock Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Jules. Posted by: spyderbaby
» RE: Jules. Posted by: montims
» RE: Jules. Posted by: riverheart
» RE: Jules. Posted by: jobie1kno
» RE: Jules. Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Jules. Posted by: observer
Exploitation of faith
Posted by: 23anastasia on Aug 10, 2005 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our leaders have taken the dogma of the Christian faith and the faithful and exploited it and built a platform of corrupt policies based upon it. I will not abandon my faith because our president has twisted it to suit his purposes. Isn't that akin to throwing the bath water out with the baby.
Your article insinuates that the faithful are mindless idiots rather than posing the question of why/how all the members of Congress and the weak Democrats (of which I always vote, btw) have allowed him to push these policies upon the American people.
Again, let's glean a lesson from history. There are many examples of despot's who use the religion of their followers and pervert it to their own gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

short memory
Posted by: 2bhuman on Aug 10, 2005 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's Sputnic all over again. Remember?
I guess not.
When you get the wake up call that no one will hire your kids because they know more about a myth than the reality we live in, what will the US do this time.
Will they start a massive project like Kennedy did to get you back on track or will you just take over the country that has the better technology?
I fear with the present administration it would be the latter.

peter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Design
Posted by: bigart on Aug 10, 2005 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a very religous atheist, ie. I know of no God but I haven't closed my mind on the subject. Why coudn't a God design a world in which evolution plays a role. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Was there a designer? When one thinks of the strong anthropic principle: how the Universe appears to be organized to accomodate carbon based life forms, it is not hard for him to wonder if somebody set it up that way. I thnk we're along way from having the answers on this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Design Posted by: jobie1kno
Americans are just DUMB-at least 52% of them are
Posted by: Ellie1 on Aug 10, 2005 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After the last two elections, I am firmly convinced that there is NO UNDERESTIMATING THE GENERAL INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only half of us are average or better Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» Statistical Oxymoronics Posted by: benzene
The Tooth Fairy Is Dead
Posted by: iamsenstiveyellow on Aug 10, 2005 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does that mean the tooth fairy is no longer believable?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Tooth Fairy Is Dead Posted by: errandchild
Shouldn't it be called Christian intelligent design
Posted by: Here and now on Aug 10, 2005 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If so, then we can brand it that way. This makes it explicit as to where these "designs" come from. The underlying basis for Christian intelligent design is faith. Evolution is based upon provable facts, not faith. Therefore Christian intelligent design is not objective, but rather subjective and explicitly religious. Since when is the public forced to teach a specific religion?

Evolution seeks to understand the creation of the universe from the measured beginning of the universe. Christian intelligent design seeks to understand existence and God. The Christian belief of God is that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. God predates the universe only because God created the universe. Since God "had" no beginning, it is faith alone and not science that says God exists. Any objective scientist will say that something must have created the universe and that God is as good of an explanation as any, but objectively a scientist has no mechanism to measure God. The scientist doesn't say that God doesn't exist, just that the scientist cannot prove that God does or does not exist.

Two very different things. As such one is saved for factual teaching and the other for religious teaching. The constitution says that the government does not respect the establishment of religion, therefore public schools being a public entity cannot respect the establishment of religion.

However let us say for a moment, that government can respect the establishment of religion. Which religion? To be fair, it would have to be all religions wouldn't it? If so, does the American public wish to have their government teach their children about religion for which they do not believe in? If religion in public schools is to be respected then all religions must be taught. Then we would have to go into the arguments of which religion is valid or not valid. Should the number of religions taught be restricted to a certain number? If so, how many and which religions?

If you are catholic, do you want your kids taught about the creation of the universe through the lens of the God for some other religion?

What about non-christian religions. Should kids be taught about non-christian religions and their creation myth?

Where does it stop? Wars have been fought over "my religion is better than your religion".
effective messaging

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Religious Establishment?
Posted by: spaghetti happens on Aug 10, 2005 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we ever needed a national civics lesson in why the Framers were adamant about the establishment of religion, now is the time. Christian "dominionists" mean just that: dominion, and it's over you, me, and everybody else. We're looking down the barrel of a dangerous intolerance of anything outside their twisted moral spectrum, and if there's anything that liberals need to be intolerant of, it's religious and cultural intolerance itself (thank you, Mark Morford and the SF Chronicle).

Unless we all want to be sheep in Doctor Dobson's flock of pseudo-Christian nutcases, we'd better get serious about fighting back before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Dominionists Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: The Dominionists Posted by: ciscospice
Science, religion and a messy divorce
Posted by: sausage on Aug 10, 2005 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since history gets the short shrift in the country we should be reminded that at one time in the not so distant past science worked in the name of religion. At least in the Protestant dominated nations of northern European, after what Pope Paul VI did to Galileo, from the 17th Cent. onwards scientists worked feverously to understand "the mind of God."

For decades, centuries even, science and religion lived in connubial bliss until Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace reared their ugly heads and posited the theory of evolution. Then the shit hit the fan!

Northern Europeans everywhere could not stand the thought of being descended from apes or any other thing that might remotely resemble black Africans or the Irish, for that matter. The backlash grew especially strong in raciest 19th Cent. America, coming to it's ludicrous conclusion with the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.

Well, we smugly though, that settles it, the divorce decree is final. Science was proven the aggrieved party, William Jennings Bryant proved that modern man descended from the Neanderthal and religion can go off and console herself with a glass of wine.

But religion proved herself to be a vindictive bitch and bided her time.

Her time came again during the Red Scare of the Nineteen Fifties, that halcyon time that reactionaries born in the Sixties nostalgically pine for. Religion, decked out in all her most intolerant finery, stood as a bulward against Godless, atheistic Communism. Religion was American. To not embrace religion was unthinkable, unAmerican.

Over the decades she has, through her minions, infiltrated every level of civil government. Religion was especially effective in subverting public education, often taking over entire school boards. Religion also infiltrated Hollywood where, for the sake of entertainment, movie producers churned out motion pictures of the supernatural and television executives pushed programs featuring ghosts, goblins, mind readers and spiritualists.

In short, folks, it has taken us nearly fifty years to get to this nadir in our national history. It will take at least that long to undo all this damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Science, religion and a messy divorce Posted by: liz-at-blackrose
"Intelligent design?" --MY ASS!
Posted by: jalowe1957 on Aug 10, 2005 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Intelligent design" is just the old creationist theory dressed up in new packaging, which makes you wonder sometimes if psychopathic serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy would be described as "intelligent design."

Good Lord! Give me a break!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

let's stop theocracy
Posted by: antonio on Aug 10, 2005 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually I am not american (italian by the way), but I can very well understand what you are claiming on with your article.

The raising of religon (better of distorted vision of religion) to policy makers position is a common process in our two countries.
And it is a process we have to stop. Not to be against religion by itself, but to be against a vicious process can will undermine the very basis of democracy as we learned it int all thiese centuires.

You have a (Born again Christian) President that flowers his speech of war with God , and wants to restricts individual liberties and science.
We are in a country that approved the most strict in Europe, and fairly totalitarian, law on assisted reproduction.
It doesn't allow research on stem-cells, it is cruel on men and women seeking to have a child with assisted reproductions, it makes wishes of church (catholic in that cases) law of a state.

More over just a few months ago a referendum to banish this law failed, and the electoral campaign saw the direct involvment od catholic jerarchies (even the new elected Pope) fight for the law, and most politicians from left and right wing using theocratic arguments.

We saw each day the Pope (since a long time the world champion on the authoritarian vision of the traditional dogmatic churc imposing its view all over th world) claiming for a more christian europe, and also asking to put in the new european constituion the christian root of our continent (what a good way to go towards 'clash of civilization'...)

By the way it is quite strange to heard President Bush, and many others, calling all of us to war against Islam, claiming it rules theocratic fascism while inspirng their home policies to home made 'de facto' theocracies....but contractions sometimes can be a western value!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: let's stop theocracy Posted by: montims
» RE: let's stop theocracy Posted by: antonio
» RE: let's stop theocracy Posted by: Mewsician
» RE: let's stop theocracy Posted by: antonio
gramps
Posted by: gramps on Aug 10, 2005 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in God and I believe in science. My God hates a liar and Albert Einstein said: "My God is bigger than yours. Evolution is no longer a theory as it was when Darwin, (an ordained minister) honestly presented his evidence. Today evolution is a scientific fact. Without evolution the modern sciences would not exist. Religion is a business and as such provides a service. People need a spiritual life but religions have become corporations. The Catholic Church is the oldest corporation in the world. Like the corporation's risk-cost analysis when the CEO estimates that it is more profitable to commit the crime and pay the fines and lawsuits if it enhances the bottom line, organized religion clings to the flat earth dogmas that fired the inquisition.

The ignorance of so many people in a society with universal communication can also be attributed to the corporation control over the universities and the media. Higher education today is relegated to providing engineers and accountants and the arts and humanities have been dropped from the curiculum. Artists are dangerous and expensive and a threat to the corporation domination of the world. Bush's God likes an ignorant humanity but my God hates a liar. The hypocracy of the "christians" who also are war profiteer is obvious. Christ wanted peace and good will and would have been horrified at the rampant slaughter that earns medals for the killers. It would be better for the progressive intellectual to contain her athiesm and support the Sojurners in religion who oppose the domination of Pat Robertson and Orel Roberts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gramps Posted by: Mewsician
» RE: gramps Posted by: berrygoldwater2004
ID strawman
Posted by: mba on Aug 10, 2005 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the posts I've seen lately have been vitriole dished out in anger... and this makes me wonder how many ID opponents actually understand what it is (through reading the writings of ID proponents). While it is true that many religious fundies have co-opted the idea, and have tried to misuse it to get religious notions into public schools (and this should be resisted!), most ID proponents DON'T want that, and so ID shouldn't be judged by how it has been mishandled.

Properly, ID is not religion disguised as science: one glance at the Table of Contents of William Dembski's book "The Design Inference" (Cambridge Univ Press) will show that it is not about religion at all, but explanatory reasoning via probability theory, complexity theory, specification measures, etc. This doesn't yet make it science, but a rather a discussion of how science generates conclusions given the data, premises, and so on. And less technical ID theorists are not challenging evolution proper, but the dogmatic NATURALISM beneath evolutionary science, which is not properly part of science at all (nor is it testable, falsifiable, etc.). So at the academic level, the few thinkers involved in this are pushing AGAINST the "religion" of science, rather than pushing FOR some other religion.

Thus, to be uninformed enough to react so viciously against ID as creationism dressed up as science is to give in to the strawman approach that calls it "religion" rather than reading up on and evaluating what ID is actually about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ID strawman Posted by: piratemonkey
» RE: ID strawman Posted by: h2oaso
Several recent polls?
Posted by: monkeybrig on Aug 10, 2005 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone know more about these polls from whence the stats came? I am curious as to WHO exactly, they were polling. I do believe that fully half the US voting population has ideas that make no firggin sense to the rest of us (as evidenced by the last couple of elections) but somehow find it hard to believe that so many of them are THAT idiotic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: polls Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: Several recent polls? Posted by: brayingdonkey
Re: ID strawman
Posted by: mba on Aug 10, 2005 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well done, piratemonkey... And this is what the discussion should be all about, actually reading and understanding the issues as ID folks put them forth, and as their opponents critique them. But many bloggers are ignorant about it all, and would prefer to call ID "religion," then sling mud.

NB: I didn't assume that there were no "several extremely comprehensive replies" from the scientific community, nor did my post "equivicat[e]" [sic] the "scientific value of his work to the work thousands of evolutionary biologist in the world." Give me a break, I did no such thing (nor do I think that). I just prefer the dicussion to be substantial and meaningful, which entails talking about ID itself, rather than what some (inappropriately) use it for or what others (uninformedly) take it to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: piratemonkey
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: Gatsby
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: mazur
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: h2oaso
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: DMX
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: piratemonkey
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: Lazerai
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: Gatsby
» RE: e: ID strawman Posted by: h2oaso
Finally someone is talking sense
Posted by: packofwolves on Aug 10, 2005 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for such a refreshing and sensible article. We are so desperately in need of some logic and intellectual thought in these dark times, which are brought on by such an ignorant administration who uses people's fears to misguide them. I was beginning to think there weren't any intelligent people left in the world who had access to the media. Thank goodness there are still people out there who have a brain. Scientists, speak up and be heard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ID discredited
Posted by: Crazy H on Aug 10, 2005 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people fascinate on one of two fallacies when discrediting ID.

The first is often referred to as "The Divine Fallacy" - if I don't understand how it works, god must have done it. The hole in this reasoning is easy to spot: I don't understand how my telephone works, therefore god must have created it. Alexander Graham Bell might take exception to that conclusion.

The second is a little more subtle. The main thrust of ID is, "Life is just so complex that it couldn't have happened on its own - so god must have created it" On the surface, it looks a lot like the divine fallacy. But it can easily be deconstructed by asking, "Okay, then by the same reasoning, didn't somebody have to create god? And of course, that being is an order of magnitude more complex than that and so who created god's god?" Obviously, this provides no answer - "It's turtles all the way down".

But my favorite rebuttal is to ask, "Okay - why is the intelligent designer such a bad designer?" I mean, really, if he's so smart, why did he use a suspension bridge for the spine rather than a support column? Why do we have an appendix? Why are knees so easy to injure? Why do we have redundant systems for our lungs and kidneys, but not the heart? Why do we use the same passageway for breathing as we do for eating, when this presents an obvious choking hazard? How come the sexual functions use the same organs as the elimination of bodily wastes?

Evolution presents rational explanations for all of these questions, "Intelligent" design does not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ID discredited Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: ID discredited Posted by: Lazerai
» RE: ID discredited Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: ID discredited Posted by: sdthomas
» RE: ID discredited Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: ID discredited (cont) Posted by: sdthomas
"Ignorance Is NOT Bliss"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 10, 2005 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is scary; it is almost beyond belief that so many Americans can be so incredibly ignorant about the universe they live in – and be PROUD of it! Thank goodness the majority do not hold the reins of human progress – otherwise, we'd still be running around in loincloths, and crucifying people for infractions.

Thomas Jefferson believed that democracy depends on an educated and informed populace, and once said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

If this is true, we're toast. . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Ignorance Is NOT Bliss" Posted by: gltirebiter
» RE: "Ignorance Is NOT Bliss" Posted by: helenwheels
Argument framing
Posted by: matthamilton on Aug 10, 2005 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article! I think one reason progressives (such as myself) are losing this battle is largely an issue of framing the argument. The fundamental religious are very good at framing arguments, and as we all know, scienctists largely dismiss topics like this because they are not scientific issues nor can be addressed by science (in terms of proving a negative assertion, I mean). Scientists are afraid to engage because that gives some implicit acknowledgement or validity to the absurd, yet silence gives some implicit level of acceptance or inability to debate. Neither are correct.

So progressives who are against pushing faith as science, and are atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, transcendalist, etc, might want to consider a new approach of framing the argument for themselves. This article points out the negative connotations derived if you label yourself as an atheist, agnostic, etc. And the other problem of ID not really being science, so can't be addressed as such because it's a religious topic. I think there might be an answer to these kinds of issues -- you have to fight religion with religion, but not a dogmatic religion, a religion that is against the pseudo-science agenda.

Don't know how many of you have heard of it, but I think the Universist movement (NOT Universalist -- this is totally different) might be of some help here. Maybe not, I'm just trying to find some kind of constructive solution to propose as a possibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Argument framing Posted by: nakis
» RE: Argument framing Posted by: AnarchX
A "war" on "unreason?"
Posted by: jpleddington on Aug 10, 2005 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some discussion of this and other ideas relevant to this piece, see my post at Philosophy, Practice, and Politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting but off the mark
Posted by: Tubeguru on Aug 10, 2005 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something the theory of evolution doesn't address is the apsect of conciousness in all living entities. Evolution does explain a lot about the nuts and bolts of how evolutionary change might occur. It is my feeling that evolution occurs through conciousness (which may explain a lot about why humans have essentially stopped evolving). The first cells could not have come together to form multicellular organisms without excercising some form of conciousness. An organism can't react to its environment without conciousness.
That evolutionary changes in organisms happen randomly as Darwin postulates is as preposterous as the idea that the earth is only six thousand years old.
Bottom line: Darwin is wrong about a lot, but not as wrong as the creationists and the ID folks. Science is not the truth it is only the the search for the truth. Until the scientific community can see beyond their own dogma they are just as wrong as the religious wackos. Scientists routinely ignore facts that conflict with their pet theories, and those who support conflicting theories no matter how well supported are also ignored. The actual facts on evolution probably support some (not all) of Darwin's theories, but if you think about it conciousness in some form must also play a role...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting but off the mark Posted by: piratemonkey
» RE: Interesting but off the mark Posted by: piratemonkey
» RE: Interesting but off the mark Posted by: mr. joshua
No Doubt
Posted by: nakis on Aug 10, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not the pop-group.

There is no doubt that America and the world at large is heading for hards time if it continues down this path. It is not as dire as as some believe but we have moved and still seem to be moving into the fanatical. Unless we change we will continue this path.
Why does this administration claim to support education and cut funding to education? Why do they shift the tax burden to states and cities and towns? They fear the educated. Why due they seek to frame 'intellectuals' as bad people. Or the 'non-faithful' (not of their faith) as bad people. Awareness has its price. And it tolls the most on the wealthy. As was quoted above without religions the wealthy would be removed.
So we have the wealthy and the religious both seeking to control the lives of the people. Should one trust the rules set up to support those two groups? Rules meant to perpetuate their control? Or should one support the Constitution that seeks to make a country where the power is in the people not the wealthy or religion.
Whether one believes in God or not is a moot point. God exists outside of religion. If no religion existed the Creator would still exist despite what the religious would have you believe. It's all in the ego. To satisfy the ego they must have power, control. Money, followers or both.

I was at church this weekend. I couldn't help thinking the word mythology when certain things were said. As if believing in these extremely far fetched beliefs would guarentee the love of the Creator. That to be included in any reward would require specific beliefs in certain things. That one cannot be a good person, kind, caring, compassionate, loving if one didn't follow specific doctrines.
No offense to the religious. I've known many good religious people. But the warning the author gives is of those who buy too much into belief. Fundamentalists of all religions are a danger to all. These people had nearly pushed me away from faith. Seeing the desctruction and division they cause.
But as one good poster put above, to sacrifice my faith due to what they do is wrong.
Besides, whatever you may believe on how or why we exist, it really seems that our biology and physiology, as it is, does not indicate that we can live peacefully together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Doubt Posted by: LMNOP
No Doubt II
Posted by: nakis on Aug 10, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if evolution holds true, we would have to choose to live peacefully together in order for our biology and physiology to catch up and predispose ourselves to those actions. Right now we are not wired that way. Whyever we are here it comes to choices. Become aware and choose a path that supports each other or continue the aggression and ego servitude of win lose thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government.
Posted by: mwarland on Aug 10, 2005 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Faith aside, the sooner people realize that religion (especially the organized kind) is, always has been, and always will be a form of government the better off they are going to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: