Posted on 01/11/2006 8:28:26 PM PST by saalebhosdike
A few thoughts regarding the recent foolishness in the courts of Pennsylvania over Intelligent Design:
A pertinent question is why the curricula of the schools should be the concern of judges, who are little more than the enforcement arm of the academic and journalistic elites, imposing on Kansas what could not be legislated in Washington. I see no evidence that judges deploy intelligence, knowledge, or any other qualification other than boundless belief in their unlimited jurisdiction.
Another question is precisely what is meant by Intelligent Design. The answer is not easily divined by reading newspapers: The press have many virtues, but facility in communication is not among them. Reporters, whose thinking is tightly templated, seem to think that Intelligent Design has something to do with Christianity. I know many who suspect intelligent design, but are not religious. This idea is too difficult for reporters, and too dangerous for Darwinists. If one heresy may be discussed, so may others be, and the cracks in the foundations become evident.
It is interesting to put the matter in historical context. To simplify exuberantly, but not inaccurately for present purposes: People long ago saw the world in (I hate words like this one) non-mechanistic terms. They thought that events occurred because Someone or Something wanted them to occur. They believed in dryads and maenads, sylphs and salamanders, gods and demiurges. It can be debated whether they were foolish, or responding as in a fog to things real but intangible.
They thought more about death in those days, perhaps because they saw more of it, and wondered. Existence was to them more moral than physical, and more often seen as a passage from somewhere to somewhere. Come Christianity if not much earlier, they accepted Good and Evil, upper case, as things that actually existed. In the cosmic order as they understood it, mind, intention, will, and consciousness trumped the material.
Then in roughly the fifteenth century a shift began to a mechanistic view of the world. Next came Newton. There were others before him, but he, though he was himself a Christian, was the towering figure in the rise of mechanism, the view that all things occur ineluctably through mindless antecedent causes. He said (remember, I’m simplifying exuberantly) that the physical world is like a pool table: If you know the starting positions and velocities of the balls, you can calculate all future positions and velocities. No sprites, banshees, or Fates, no volition or consciousness. He invented the mathematics to make it stick, at least for pool tables.
This notion of mechanism spread to other fields. Marx said that history was a mechanical unfolding of economics, Freud that our very personalities were a deterministic result of strange sexual complexes, Darwin (or more correctly his disciples) that we were the offspring of purposeless material couplings, first of molecules and then of organisms. Skinner made us individually the will-less product of psychological conditioning. Sociology did much the same for groups, giving rise to the cult of victimhood: I am not what I am because of decisions I made, but because of social circumstances over which I have no influence. Genetics now seeks to make us the result of tinker-toy chemical mechanism.
No will, free or otherwise. No good or evil, right or wrong. Consciousness being an awkward problem for determinists, they ignore it or brush it aside. Death is harder to ignore, but accepted only as a physical termination. One says, “John is gone,” but does not ask, “Where has John gone?” The world offers no mystery or wonder. All questions come down to no more than a fine tuning of our analysis of Newton’s pool balls. (Again, I am exuberantly….)
These two views, which reduce to the age-old puzzle of free will and determinism, can be endlessly argued, and have been. Mechanism prevails today because, within its realm, it works, and perhaps also because it does not suffer from the internal contradictions of religion. Technology, almost the only advance made by our otherwise unimpressive civilization, produces results, such as iPods and television. It does not answer, and cannot answer, such questions as Where are we? Why? Where are we going? What should we do? So it dismisses them. Mechanists are hostile to religion in part because religion does not dismiss these questions, but harps on them.
The two conflicting schemes attract adherents because mankind always seeks overarching explanations, particularly regarding origin, destiny, and purpose. Some of us are willing to say “I don’t know.” Others, well denominated True Believers, have to think that they do know. The country is replete with them: Feminists, Marxists, Born-Agains, rabid anti-semites, snake handlers, Neo-Darwinists. They care deeply, brook no dissent (a sure sign of True Belief), and have infinite confidence in their rightness (or perhaps don’t and pretend certainty to ward off a disturbing uncertainty).
In re Intelligent Design, the Darwinists have pretty much won. Their victory springs not so much from the strength of their ideas, but from their success in preventing Intelligent Discussion. They control the zeitgeist of the somewhat educated, as for example judges. It is enough.
Evolution is one of the three sacred foundations of political correctness, along with the notions that there can be no racial and sexual difference in mental capacities, and that religion is unprogressive and should be suppressed, Yet these are delicate things all three, and cannot well bear scrutiny. Thus the various determinists grimly avoid examination of their ideas.
The lacunae are nonetheless obvious. All is material? If I were to talk to a Neo-Darwinist, I might proceed as follows. “One day you will die. Where will you then be? Yes, yes, I know. We do not speak of this. Yet death does seem to be a bit of a reality. Do you never wake up at three in the morning and think, ‘Where in the name of—in the name of Logical Positivism, I suppose you would think—are we?’ If not, you are a great fool.
“Let me put the matter differently. Either you believe that there is life after death, or you believe there isn’t, or you aren’t sure—which means that you believe that there may be. If there is, then there exists a realm of which we know nothing, including what if any effects it exerts on this passing world. If there is nothing beyond the grave, why do you care about anything at all? You’ve only got a few more years, and then—nothing.”
Or I might say, “You don’t mind if I boil your young daughter in oil tonight, do you? The world being purely material, the only effect would be to interrupt certain chemical reactions conjointly called ‘metabolism’ and to substitute others. You cannot object to such a small thing. She will not mind: Consciousness not being derivable from physics, she cannot be conscious. Boiling children cannot be Wrong, as the term has no physical meaning, and in any event all my actions follow inexorably from the Big Bang. I am only doing as blind causality instructs me.”
In truth we know very little about existence, neither you nor I nor biochemists nor even federal judges. We defend our paradigms because we crave a sense of understanding this curious place in which we briefly are. We do it by ignoring the inconvenient and by punishing doubt. Thus the furor over Intelligent Design.
I'll check it out. I'm a "nuts and bolts" kinda guy and Evan Walker Harris explains Quantum Physics like no one else. I've never been much into blind faith...and he manages to explain things in a way the layman can understand.
My hat's off to him. I think I read his book about 6 or 7 times now.
....oops Evan Harris Walker.
Thanks so much for the link to Denis O. Lamoureux's paper on Evolutionary Creation at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm.
As he correctly states, the leading evangelical evolutionary creationist today is Howard Van Till. He spent most of his career at Calvin College, an institution considered to be the leading evangelical college in the United States supporting this view of origins. Van Till claims that God created the world 'fully-gifted' from its inception so that all the universe and life would evolve without subsequent Divine interventions.
I agree with him except for one thing - I think there was at the very least one subsequent "Divine intervention" when God specifically created Adam in His image.
As there was no "suitable" mate to be found for Adam from among the other lesser creatures --- which had been created (anciently) --- God created Eve from Adam's specifically created substance.
God banished the two of them from the Garden of Eden after they deliberately disobeyed (sinned), marring his image in them.
What happened after that?
Dick Fisher has written a couple of fascinating articles defending the special creation of Adam and Eve while at the same time providing a possible explanation for why many scientists insist they have biological evidence that all life descended from one single ancestor.
Like Lamoureux, Dick Fisher is also a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). Here are the links to his articles:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
http://www.genesisproclaimed.org
Any feedback would be appreciated.
On a side note: Personally, I think that until scientists get rid of their current PR people and instead promote people like Lamoureaux and Fisher as PR persons on the subject of evolution, they will not make much headway with the American public - the vast majority of whom claim to be Christians.
The most vocal proponents of "evolution" (their PR people), are atheists like Dawkins, and other rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth God haters. Types like the "humanist" Eugenie Scott, et.al., don't fool anyone either - just because they have chosen a "low key" approach. Web sites like internet infidels may champion such people, but serious, orthodox Christians will not pay one bit of attention to the opinions of atheists/secular humanists when it comes to the important questions of life.
Thank you for all the information and links!
You're welcome.
Why would God need to create Adam atom by atom, molecule by molecule, from dirt? A possible scenario is that "man", God's ultimate creation, was differentiated from other creations by the presence of Free will - one of God's intended outcomes of evolution. With Free will, God bestowed Adam with a soul, through His first direct divine contact (ensoulement would be His divine intervention, bestowed for each human being).
Eve would have been a biologically compatible partner for Adam, also with Free will and ensouled. By His grace, God's gift to Adam found Adam. And, through Free will, something which gives humans alone the ability to act outside of God's will, they sinned - the first free creation spurning the creator.
So, we may have all descended from a single ancestor, but ensoulement was our gift from God, differentiating us from prior ancestors in the most important way possible. And by utilising the mental gifts God also gave us, through evolution (as he willed evolution to unfold from the initial moment of all creation), we were given the tools to understand the "how" of creation, while divine inspiration provided us with the "why".
"Need" wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Ecclesiastes 3:11: "...He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."
"Does competing world view fit into math class also?"
Sho nuff does - ain't you heerd o' New Math? Thet NEA bunch is sho happy wit it. /sarc
Forgive me, Lord for my bad mouthing of hard working, union dues paying, Gramsci spouting, math educators from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Well I suppose that's one way to look at the question. Certainly it is not the only way.
Coyoteman, about a week ago on another thread, we were discussing Aristotle's laws of causation, there being four. And it seemed to me you didn't mind that I characterized the modern-day scientific method (methodological naturalism that is) as being exclusively interested in material and efficient causes. Then I may have suggested material and efficient causes didn't seem to explain everything that needs to be explained in the world of nature. Whereupon you wrote back and asked me how I thought science could "measure" formal and final causes.
Well, having thought it over, I'd answer that question by saying: Probably the same way the scientific method seemingly always deals with such problems: Either hold them tacitly, as unexamined initial premises; or outright deny they exist. Then these same folks will turn around, and describe to you their formal cause: random mutation + natural selection.
These are the self-same people who will tell you that, as a random process, nature does not intend toward any particular goal. But then, the next thing you know, these same folks will turn around and tell you that natural selection is keyed to the survival of the fittest (however defined) — which is a telos, a final cause.
No disrespect intended; but it seems to me, Coyoteman, that neo-Darwinist theory in particular is well overdue for an epistemological "house-cleaning." FWIW
Thanks so much for writing!
This is going to take more effort than I can put in tonight (its late and I haven't shaved).
Let me look at this fresh over the weekend and see what I can come up with as a suitable response.
Coyote
Is that anything like an prime enema?...
If you're wondering why that might be the case, well I just happen to respect the way you think.
Thanks for asking questions and sharing your thoughts with me.
Actually hosepipe, it may be very, very like. :^) And so one hesitates to elaborate a description.... :^)
Thanks so much for the chuckle!
LoL.... has a ring to it dunt it..
Yes indeed - an explanation by default. Thanks for your post!
Yes indeed, Vic, because that is what human beings are -- agents with goals -- and they've always been that way. At a time when humans have been thoroughly devalued, it seems we can no longer appreciate this indisputable fact.
As to what I intend by the word random, I simply think of it as the condition of a given system in which the system's parts are not correlated. Correlation is something specifiable by a blueprint, but a blueprint is not a "natural" object. Darwinist random mutation + natural selection is not a "blueprint," because it specifies no purpose. (Formal and final causes seem to be intimately related one to the other.) Darwinist evolution theory is literally mindless. Perhaps that is its great attraction for many people today.
But I'm just a dinosaur who does not hold to this view of a mindless, purposeless universe; or that the development of its critical components (preeminently including man, an intelligent being) could possibly be the product of a purely "random walk."
For how could a universe that contains intelligent beings have less than an intelligent cause? Which is why I aver that Darwinist theory is not "wrong" necessarily, but simply incomplete. It explains much; but not everything. FWIW
Thanks so much for your reply, Vic.
If you are a dinosaur then so am I.
Truly, if all those who are so quick to declare a thing random or purposeless would lay aside their bias for just one instant they would realize they cannot make any such declaration about a system when they do not yet know what the system "is".
But that is what happens when science sweeps half of the Aristotlean causes off the table in the interest of "methodological naturalism". The danger, of course, is if they also believe what remains is reality.
Wait just a minute, vic: When were we ever enthroned, such that now we are "dethroned?" What was that state of being, whose apparent loss (seemingly) you so bitterly complain about?
It appears that John Derbyshire does complain about it. I read him regularly in The National Review. He usually treats of scientific topics there. I thought his recent piece on intelligent design completely missed the point of the issues ID raises. Which have nothing to do with a "search for the designer," or a "proof of the existence of God." Either pursuit would be frivolous and unfruitful I'm sure, and certainly not a proper object for science.
Mr. Derbyshire is entitled to his own views, just as all the rest of us. But what he is not entitled to -- nor any of the rest of us -- is his own facts.
In my judgment FWIW, ID has been presented (and is being presented) to the public in terms of a completely confused and inchoate description. But then it is true that, on the Progressive Left, it has always been understood that whoever gets control of the language, gets control of the debate.
Thanks so much for writing, vic!
Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post! I agree with you on all of it.
True, evidenced by the word "progressive" being used for regressive ideas and solutions being used.. With, Diaelectic materialists, words are part of the material they "morph"..
When I was taught man evolved from an ape like creature in class, I realized the religion of most scientist is not compatible with being a true Christian.
Credentials?
Funny that no actual scientists ever say that. Ones with real science degress from actual accredited colleges that is.
God help us when we allow the majority rule to dictate what's in school. Curriculums would consist of Introduction to Eating at McDonalds, Advanced Britney Spears Appreciation and Creationism 101.
i.e. your version of "true Christian" is not compatible with science.
Yeah, it sure would. Whatever.
Oh yeah, and of course because I believe God created the world, that puts me right in your idiot book huh? Because it would really hurt my feelings if it did.
Hmm...that's an odd response to a post stating that majority rule would be bad for schools.
But if you'd rather play games than discuss I guess that's your prerogative.
The trump card. Wins all arguments, huh?
Do you guys feel that curriculum should match the latest polls or not? Keeping yall on the point is like pulling teeth.
So 90% of the USA is "dictating?" Also, why should you dictate what gets taught as science? I mean, no one needs approval to teach physics, math, etc.
I think teaching Creationism in school is a great idea -- in philosophy class. Don't forget to include the Indian, Hindo, Shinto, etc. etc. myths too.
ID is mythology. As thr author himself says -- it suggests "I don't know" is a valid FINAL response to scientific inquiry.
ID is Creationism in sheeps' clothing.
Use technology much? You know, like using a computer to post on fora. If so, then it must be from the Devil (or at least not a "True Christian," whatever the heck that is).
Here is my whole complaint in a nutshell: Just because people believe in God and His creation, we are deemed as ignorant and stupid by the secularists.
I am fine with teaching only science in science classes. Science is great, The world would be a much darker place if it weren't for scientific advances. I have taken quite a few science classes and know first hand that there is an agenda being pushed onto every student that takes a science class, and it isn't a creationist agenda. There is no critical thought being taught at all.
after your response to me, you accuse me of being off point? In a nutshell, I am sick to death of the superior and condescending attitude that secularists have concerning Christians. I love science, and the world would be a much darker place without the scientific acvances we have made. Curriculum based on polls? Never. Science being taught as science without bias? Yes.
Not true and not here. It is when someone makes a statement such as "Creationism is a THEORY that should be taught alongside of Evolution" or "Evolution is a Religion" or "All Evos are Athiests" that the fur flies. These statements splash all with the tar of idiocy.
What gets a lot of us (IMHO) is the last one. I am willing to wager 95% of the Freepers posting on the Evo side of things are Christians. And I, for one, will not let someone so intellectually challenged as to mistake myth for science to challenge my relationship with God and Christ.
Oh good, so you're against ID. Good to hear.
If by chance you are for teaching ID in school, you're skipping a logical step. The cold hard facts are that Evolution is objective, unbiased science and ID is a transparent remasking of Creation which, while fine on its own, has nothing to do with science.
So until you can actually make a case that ID is science, I guess you'll continue to be "sick to death" when those of us (including Christians like myself) are forced to keep you from screwing up science education in this country. If that feels like "arrogance" to you (and if you feel the need to make up the fallacious viewpoint that it's all from "secularists") then you're going to continue to be frustrated, I'm sure.
So you profess yourself to be a Christian. Do you believe that the Bible is the unfallible word of God? That all scripture is God breathed? If not, where do you draw the line? What is real and what isn't? Does it simply make you feel good that you are part of a church? Those of us that really know the Truth are sick of trying to keep you from screwing it up. If that feels like arrogance to you, then read your Bible.
Where do you draw the line between what the Bible says, and what you believe? I don't want to seem intellectually challenged or anything, because I am not, but when and at what point do you pick it all apart and say,"That part is right, no that part is wrong, there it's OK again." And then ask yourself if you really believe int he infallibility of God, that the whole Bible is THE word of God. You can't pick parts, that is the slippery sploe and the highway to hell. And I am not judging injustly.
Nope. Where do I draw the line? That's what theology is, right?
I'll say it again. If you're a strict literalist then you and I both agree that there are parts of the Bible that are literal and parts that are to be interpreted/symbolic. We just disagree on which parts.
And if a part turns out to be in conflict with good science, then I readdress my intepretation. I don't rationalize a way to pretend the realities presented to me are not real.
It is a thought provoking article. Thank you for posting it.
Nice try. The "slippery slope" argument, although amusing, carries no weight. Keep in mind the following:
1. Unless you are reading the Bible in its original Arameic, you are reading a translation and thus an interpretation.
2. There are 2 Creation stories. There is a 6 day one and a 7 day one. They have been "blended" in what people read today.
3. EVERYTHING a human being reads is filtered through a lens of interpretation. It is physically impossible not to.
I am not picking and choosing at all. I am seeing the Bible in its entirety as a spiritual guide, not a scientific text. It refers to historic events (the largest being the birth, death and resurrection of Christ), but those events are highlighted to provide a context and framework.
Are you saying Catholics (who IIRC agree with TToE as a matter of doctrine) or Calvinists (who interpret the Bible quite differently than mainstream Protestantism) or Angicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. etc. etc ALL OF WHICH interpret the Bible differently are all on the highway to hell?
When God speaks to me through the scriptures, he speaks to my Immortal Soul, not the transitory Mortal Sciences.
I believe the proper term here is "those of us who THINK we really know the Truth."
Does the quote "vanity of vanities, all is vanity" ring a bell?
What do you do with the part that says you shouldn't eat meat from animals with cloven hooves?
Or
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." Leviticus 21:9 NAB
Don't you have better things to do than digging up old threads?
Condescension here by noted.
Thanks. It's hard to get my props.
Too bad the point of my post was missed, tho.
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.