Me too. :)
Posted on 12/21/2005 2:06:09 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Competing Designs
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that criticizing Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude A HREF="anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."
God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the Kitzmiller decision, writes that
many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Me too. :)
Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!
In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God. That is, God as Person, or (as in Christianity), of Three Persons in One God. That is, pretty much he thinks that monotheist religions are dangerous to the public and can be justly restrained.
But Buddhism, say, would be just fine with him, in a way that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not. The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics. (How very, very fashionable of him.)
In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here.
Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer!
Plus its cosmology is the eternal universe model: No beginning, nor end. Just a universe that always was, going through the cyclical process of waxing and waning forever.
It's hard to find a basis for morality in a "system" like that. I guess maybe that would be its "third charm."
I'd say perhaps you ought to read your source here with greater attention. But then, I wonder what good that would do.
In either case, lately I've begun to notice that what a man says is not the important thing. It's what a man does that tells you who or what the man is.
Anyhoot, it's Christmas. Didn't mean to pile on Dennett necessarily. However he does seem to provide a model -- Dennett as the "representative man of his age," as Voegelin termed it -- that many people around here follow. FWIW
I hope you have a joyous Chrsitmas, CGM, and a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2006!
Buddha was a protestant Hindu.. he used to be a Hindu when young.. and held to some Hindu ways and concepts.. Buddhism, Hinduism, same thing basically, only different.. and other religions came from those.. with engrams of Brahmanism as does Hinduism.. and the others.. Even animism makes more sense then those systems.. Worshiping a rock is simpler and much cheaper unless you get a shaman then animism gets expensive too.. thats what twisted Buddha que, paying off the priests..
Moral Absolutes Ping.
I like this article, as far as it goes. Makes his point, and I agree with it. Dawkins also said (as quoted in, IIRC, "Darwin on Trial", unless it was in "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism") that people who believe in God are wicked.
Many people who consider themselves religious or believers in God want to believe in the TOE because they don't want to think of themselves, or have others think of them, as ignorant fanatic flat earthers. Here's my response:
1. To live one's life or hold beliefs in order to curry favor or garner the approval of others is a miserable type of slavery.
2. Truth is is light, and ignorance is darkness. Find the truth, and that is all that is imporant.
3. Look at motives. Look at character. Read the books that criticize the TOE, as many as you can. Then, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
4. Keep in mind that the TOE is a type of cultural myth that all "better" people are supposed to believe in, or they are cultural misfits. But think of this - if we all lived in the ancient Mayan culture (I think it was the Mayas), they believed that the sun would go out every so often, 50-odd years, if everyone in the kingdom didn't stay wide awake for seven days! So everyone, from babies to grandmas, had to stay away for one solid week, living in the fear that the sun would go dark if they didn't.
Moral of the story: People can and do believe all kinds of nonsensical crap en masse. Large numbers of people believing something doesn't give it any credence or weight.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
(My personal viewpoint is the the TOE is in its death throes. That's why its proponents are so viciously rabid and angry.)
:-)
Good advice. This reminds me of something I heard Bishop Sheen say in a re-broadcast of "Life is Worth Living" the other day.
He noted that the people who attended Christ's birth (the Incarnation) were shepherds and "wise men." The shepherds were humble people, aware of their ignorance, and simply accepted the mystery of the Incarnation. The wise men knew much, but knew that their knowledge was limited, and wisely humbled themselves before Christ.
Bishop Sheen called the people who didn't attend the Incarnation "one-book people;" people who know a little, but think that they know everything.
Such I believe is the case with the bulk of the pro-evo crowd.
And that pesky pro-atomic theory crowd.
Neither did Dennett mention this. Which supports my view that his animus is specifically anti-Christian. Catholic women are not second-class citizens in any respect, regardless of the fact that the Church will not ordain women as priests. One has only to look at the veneration of Mary (so disturbing to some of my Reformed Church friends) to know that she is indispensable to the Church's entire self-concept.
You wrote:
"Now, if you read this the way it was written, it is obvious that he is talking about religions that try to force people to follow their tenets. Or religions whose tenets are no longer compatible with modern standards of individual rights, and whose support will just wither at the light of reason. In a nutshell he is saying that all religions will have to adapt to the intellectual environment or they will go extinct."
This is just more claptrap. Christianity forces no one to be a believer. Islam does, however: Historically, it has converted folks by the sword....
You forget that American constitutional tradition holds that people have individual rights because these rights are endued in them by God the Creator, and that therefore no just government may infringe these inalienable personal rights of life, liberty, happiness (or private property).
"Modern standards of individual rights" actually are devoted to group rights. The dignity of the human person as an individual has no other basis than that he is the creature -- and son -- of God.
Older morality will "wither" in the light of reason? I strongly doubt it, CG. For "modern standards of reason" are becoming increasingly irrational. And if you had read Dennett a little more closely -- rather than just giving it a superficial read, and taking the man at his word -- you would perhaps have noticed this.
Christianity does not "adapt to the intellectual environment," for it stands for eternal truths. The Catholic Church in particular has been the great bastion of reason, in addition to faith, for two millennia. Why should it change, just because a bunch of Left Progressives think they can "sell" a second reality to people who are already committed to the First Reality of the great hierarchy of being, ordained by God?
It is said that some 90 percent of Americans describe themselves as theists, and this number is overwhelmingly Christian. Do you really believe that the blandishments of Dennett, Dawkins, Lewontin, et al., are going to persuade these people to "dump" God and His Law in favor of the preferred passing fancies of Left-Progressive academics?
Argghh! I think you, too, may be living in a second reality, my friend.
Have you seen the movie,What The Bleep Do We Know?"
Nor is it something that was discovered in the Enlightenment. Just ask Plato and Aristotle. Or St. Augustine, or St. Justin Martyr; or St. Thomas Aquinas; or St. Anselm of Canterbury.
I think if you have a problem, CG, it is this: You do not know the human past, so you cannot value it.
True... so true..
Muslims faceing the <-sillyness of Islam, face challengeing their cultures and face being rejected by their familys, friends, and in some cases face death at the hands of those very same people.... Apostasy(leaving Islam) is punishable by death. Mohammed said,
"Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Quran; Surah Vol. 9:57
Islam has a strong murderological base... ACT LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT OR DIE!...
**Note: since not all "christians" are indeed christians, for sure not all "muslims" are indeed muslims..
What rights would those be?.. that "christians" are disobeying..
The article leading this thread is an outstanding essay. Definitely, for the the file kind of stuff.
Let me also suggest that if "older morality withers" in the light of a mechanistic universe, that there is no morality that can take its place, since there will be no basis for any morality beyond what individuals or localities happen to choose to enforce for whatever peculiar reasons that drive them at that place and time.
This should be good news to Pol Pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.