Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Last Stop | New World Murder »

Sunday, November 25, 2007

I Pity the Creationist

posted by on November 25 at 12:46 PM

It’s impossible to feel sorry for the hacks who promote intelligent design, especially after you hear the evidence presented at the famous Dover trial (if you haven’t watched it yet, NOVA has its complete Judgment Day episode up online—I recommend Chapter 11, in which the roots of ID are located in a Supreme Court decision rejecting the teaching of creationism in schools).

Trilobite.jpg

IDers clearly know they’re misleading the public, if not with regard to their beliefs, then at least with how those beliefs are described and marketed. It’s infuriating.

But I am not so cruel that I can’t see the tragedy in today’s New York Times Magazine article about young-earth creationists who have also earned legit PhDs. Their cognitive dissonance is heartbreaking:

Given the difficulty of their intellectual enterprise, the creationist geologists often have a story about the time they nearly gave it up. For [Kurt] Wise the crisis hit when he was a sophomore in high school. He was already an avid fossil collector who dreamed “an unattainable dream” of going to Harvard to study paleontology and then to teach at a big university. But as he told a friend, he couldn’t reconcile the geologic ages with what he read in his Bible. So he set about figuring this out: every night, for months, he cut out every verse of the Bible he’d have to reject to believe in evolution. “I dreaded the impending end,” he writes in a collection of essays called “In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.” “All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science.”

When he was done, he tried to pick up what was left. But he found it impossible to do that without the Bible being “rent in two,” he writes. “Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible.” In the end, he kept his Bible and achieved his unattainable dream. But it left him in a strange, vulnerable place. “If all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.”

[…]

If Wise still has doubts, or unhappiness, he has learned to put them aside. When consulting for the Creation Museum, he considered his most important duty to be presenting a “coherent story line about the earth’s history,” he said. “Even if it’s wrong, it’s a starting point. We use coherence as a criteria. It ought to fit together not as a set of random processes but something coherent orchestrated by God.”

From searching for truth to fumbling after coherence. It’s so sad.

RSS icon Comments

1

Doesn't ANY of these idiots remember back a year ago when the Vatican's announced:


"In a press conference yesterday, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, made it perfectly clear that the Catholic church does not consider Genesis and Evolution to be mutually exclusive. Instead, he underscored the church's belief that a Creator is responsible for orchestrating the universe, and that the specifics of how fall into the realm of science."


The saddest part about these fools is that the VATICAN doesn't even endorse/believe them...


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Posted by Colton | November 25, 2007 12:49 PM
2

@1: Thanks for the link. Most Catholics don't have a problem with interpreting the book of Genesis (and Revelation for that matter) as symbolic or allegorical. It is only fundamentalist Protestants who think every word of the Bible is intended to be taken absolutely literally. Of course these people see the Vatican and Catholicism in general as a bastion of heresy so the Cardinal's pronouncement on the matter wouldn't carry much weight with them.

Posted by RainMan | November 25, 2007 1:09 PM
3

Every God-fearing person knows that The Devil put fossils in the earth to make people doubt the fact (which is stated in the Bible, so it must be true--right?) that the world was created in 7 days. It was so cool of God to whip up our whole tasty little planet in practically no time. He made it look so easy, sort of like Martha Stewart (too bad she's ungodly). It's sad that we didn't have TV back then so we could've watch God shake and bake his fabulous little creation. Godless scientists who pontificate that the earth must be billions and billions of years old are doomed to burn in hell for all eternity. Atheists also advocate stupid stuff like exorcising the Rat from Pope Ratzinger. No amount of Hail Marys or Our Fathers can spare them from the hellacious fate that awaits them. P.S. That's a cool pic of one of those Devil-implanted trilobites... It sure woulda fooled me.

Posted by Mud Baby | November 25, 2007 1:29 PM
4

@2 Amen!

Posted by Chris | November 25, 2007 1:35 PM
5

I was always under the impression that belief in intelligent design wasn't incompatible with evolution. ID theory simply states that a higher power guided/planned/created the process, including evolution (scientifically sound), or 7-day creationism (unsound). Belief in a higher power is not a rejection of evolution. Many Christians I know feel that that Bible was metaphorical when describing "creation" and they fully support evolution, but think it was God-guided.

It's those who believe in 7 day creation that this article should be aimed at. Not sure if there is a catchy name for them. Fundies, maybe?

Posted by GW | November 25, 2007 2:03 PM
6

This was an interesting program last week -caught it by accident. Of course, I'm very well familiar with Dover, PA (they were unfairly renowned for their wrestling team back in the 80s, if one kept track of H.S. sports. Sucking weight, like 10 lbs. on the day of a match is an incredible buzz, high, whatever it's called, think prescription drugs within the family for water irretension, and 5 garbage bags hotglued to loosely form-fit cuz the fancy dancy plastic sweatclothes at REIs of the day were probably consumed by suburban fortunates).

For the case, no actual opinion on my part, after all, my mind has been warped by the undergrad Cultural Studies scene of growing insignificance, thankfully. However, aesthetically, the interviews with townspeople choked on memory scuffle, the fictionalized court scenes had a new breath of austereness, and the scientists talking to the camera/invisiblequestionnaire were intelligent and unbelievably unbelievable, asserting some point. I couldn't really concentrate, the hoodlums outside smashing 40s bottles has me on edge, of somethingness.

Posted by June Bee | November 25, 2007 2:15 PM
7

Let's teach ID theory and evolution side by side. Then in biology class we can teach the stork theory of where babies come from.

Posted by Heather | November 25, 2007 2:25 PM
8

There is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Look it up.

Posted by Pastey Boy | November 25, 2007 2:42 PM
9

No, there isn't.

And evolution isn't "guided by God", either. To suggest that God guides the process is to completely misunderstand how evolution works. If you want to say God INITIATED the process, fine, but you're still being pretty stupid. Evolution is guided by the environment.

Posted by Fnarf | November 25, 2007 3:08 PM
10

What makes one dogma better than the other?

Darwin's Theory is just that, a theory. But, for many it is treated as a religion.

Creationism is actually less dogmatic than the Darwin religion. Creationism is just a wishy-washy, watered-down book of Genesis.

I'm not a creationist, nor do worship at the altar of Darwin. There are always more questions and points of view to be explored.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 3:13 PM
11

@5: The results of evolution we see in the natural world just don't look very planned. There are hundreds of examples of stupid designs because natural selection cannot plan ahead. It can only make very small changes and every step along the way has to be adaptive. ID is absolutely a form of evolution, but it is completely incompatible with Darwinian natural selection.

Posted by gfish | November 25, 2007 3:29 PM
12

@11
oh yeah, that reminds me of an animation focal point of the programm - bateria swimmeing mechanism, arguments and counter (includes a mousetrap,

which a holla out to anyone if they'd like to help with project I'm nesting with - need to slow down footage in and combine multiediting)

, cool stuff if the "judgemnent day episode online" onlooking can concur

Posted by June Bee | November 25, 2007 3:39 PM
13

Darwinism, Christianity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all the same. All are religions.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 3:41 PM
14

Pasty Boy,

There is no difference between creationism and ID. That's the entire point of the fucking program and the information gleaned as result of the trial. ID == Creationism. It's just new semantics stating an old idea in a matter that tries to skirt constitutional law.

DUH.

Posted by seattle98104 | November 25, 2007 3:52 PM
15

Actually, Darwinism is NOT a religion--and that's such a bullshit cop-out by those trying to defend the indefensible.

Same with the "they're both just theories" argument--which ignores the simple fact that one theory is built upon the predominance of evidence, tested and refined as more knowledge is gained...and the other theory is based "well, it could be" and the allegorical writings of an unscientific book (and the all powerful ability to believe something, despite evidence to the contrary.)

A religion only exists as long as there are people who believe in its teachings. Evolution has happened and is happening whether or not we choose to believe in it or not.

And one more thought...in simple scientific terms, "intelligent design" is faulty. It presumes a conclusion and looks to find evidence that supports it. That's simply bad science--and that's the easiest reason to keep it out of the classroom.

Meanwhile, we are constantly adding to and revising our knowledge of the world around us based on proper science--and the fact that our theory of evolution has itself evolved over time, and will continue to do so, is NOT proof of it being errant--but is in fact proof of it being our best, unbiased, understanding of how our world works. And that's why it belongs in our classrooms...

Canopy of water vapor, my ass.

Posted by pgreyy | November 25, 2007 4:05 PM
16

Oh my, pgrevy,

such religious fervor and zeal!

Darwin can do no wrong. Darwin is all. Kneel before Darwin. Oh, dear.

And one more thought...in simple scientific terms, "intelligent design" is faulty. It presumes a conclusion and looks to find evidence that supports it.

Isn't Darwinism still looking to fill gaps in the fossil record? Looks like Darwinists are playing the faith game here as they presume first, find the evidence later (hopefully!).

Darwinism functions as a religion. It's a belief system, just like any other.

Theories are just theories, and they can be tossed out when there is a paradigm shift. Until then, as far as Darwinism is concerned, we're dealing in dogma.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Darwinism, ID, Flying Spaghetti Monster or any number of other religions/creation myths get taught in schools. Although...perhaps it would be good if they all were taught and let the kids sort out the workings of the universe on their own.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 4:19 PM
17

No, BallardDan, evolution is a scientific theory, which like all theories is falsifiable and posits hypotheses that can be tested. It's not a fucking belief system.

Creationism is a belief system. It is not a theory. People who think Creationism is a theory like evolution is a theory are ignorant of what the word "theory" MEANS. You are merely a data point for the argument that science education no longer exists in this country.

Posted by Fnarf | November 25, 2007 4:24 PM
18

BallardDan is the type of moron that makes me ashamed of the human race.

Posted by Julie | November 25, 2007 4:37 PM
19

BallardDan, you simply fail to recognize the crucial difference between religious beliefs and science - namely, that science depends upon experimental verification, and the accepted details of theories are adapted to fit new observations as they are encountered and confirmed.

Consider your "gaps in the fossil record" question: Biologists fully acknowledge that there are particular observations that aren't fully explained. What they do point out is how the current model of evolution perfectly explains a tremendous body of empirical observation over the past couple of centures. If further discoveries point to problems with current evolutionary explanations, scientists will seek a modified theory that adequately explains them. That is what the other "belief systems" you specify generally do not allow for.

Then again, you're the AIDS denialist guy, so you've already shown a predilection for theories unconstrained by supporting evidence.

Posted by tsm | November 25, 2007 4:39 PM
20

BallardDan exemplifies why Americans have so much trouble understanding science. Its too much work to actually understand so its easier to write it off as dogma.

Lets all make monkey sounds for a while.

Posted by Mikeblancom | November 25, 2007 4:41 PM
21

More religious fervor, I see!

Can't really look in the mirror and see that Darwinism is a religion for you, can you?

If it wasn't a religion, you wouldn't defend it so vigorously. You would be open to questioning it.

Does the world need to believe in Darwin? What happens if we don't?

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 4:48 PM
22

FYI to sane people:

Don't let someone get away with using the word "Darwinism". Accepting that stupid word implicitly concedes the premise that "belief" in evolution is something other than a rational interpretation of facts.

Just as you wouldn't accept the use of "Newtonism", "Copernicism" or "Galileoism", you shouldn't let people refer to evolution as if it were a article of faith, fully specified by a single individual.

Posted by A Non Imus | November 25, 2007 4:54 PM
23

Take a way Darwinism and you can forget about understanding or treating drug resistant bacteria, and probably any other infectious disease you can name. And it would kind of undermine prevention of genetic disorders. A little bit. Modern agriculture would sort of fall apart too. To name a few things.

I guess if scientific thinking were a religion it would be unique one, in that it actually works, curing disease and smiting your enemies and so on. So it's kind of funny; to have faith in a supernatural religion you need to believe things without evidence, or even in spite of the evidence. But if your faith in science is weak you need only take a Viagra or get on an airplane to see if it still works.

Posted by elenchos | November 25, 2007 4:54 PM
24

I'd assume there are many great evolutionists or plain unlabled Science Guys the Nye f'rinstance ("Possibly Maybe" videouuuutubing) who have expanded on, "evolved" that cerertain 188somethin God's theories. Name calling is an aberration of hard science, theory or practice, think so not-ish?

Posted by June Bee | November 25, 2007 4:56 PM
25

tsm,

you misrepresent and then show that as "proof".

I'm not the one that believes in these things. You, Fnarfy, pgeyy and whoever else here are the believers, whether it be Darwinism, "AIDS", bird flu...whatever.

You are the ones essentially telling me (and others) that we need to believe in your belief system.

You are the religionists. Your faith in Darwin, "AIDS", etc. is unshakeable. You call it "science", and that is your religion. Science is NOT infallible, yet you are treating it as such.

Science isn't static. It goes through changes, it has paradigm shifts. What was considered fact at one point in time can turn into fiction as science shifts it's attention and gains new understanding.

ALL scientific understanding is open to scrutiny. If not, then it's functioning as religion.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 5:05 PM
26

BallardDan wrote: "If it wasn't a religion, you wouldn't defend it so vigorously. You would be open to questioning it."

There's your "try the soup" moment, BallardDan.

(In other words, "Aha!")

Science questions evolutionary theory ALL THE TIME. It is that rigorous process of testing a hypothesis in order to see whether or not it holds true and creating a theory from those tests...which is then subject to further testing, new hypotheses, refined theories, etcetera that gives the scientific process the validation that simply "it said so in a book, and the book says that God said it, so it must be true and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong" never can.

IF there was any scientific validation to the teachings of Intelligent Design--it would become part of the current base of scientific knowledge.

But remember, the "unique selling proposition" of Intelligent Design isn't "here are the facts which we can prove" but merely "teach the controversy (...or, so-called controversy that is entirely of our own creation...I mean, of course, design"--because THERE'S NO SCIENCE TO TEACH THERE...there's only semantic gymnastics and dogmatic circular questions about another theory that have been tossed into a marketing campaign against knowledge, understanding and the basic systems of learning.

...that's what makes people so angry, not that our "Darwinian religion" is being questioned--but that the fact that "knowledge" is being denied.

You might as well say that the Holocaust is a religion...and then say "well, if it wasn't a religion, why do you get so angry when someone questions whether or not it happened?"

pg--"Where's the spoon?"

Posted by pgreyy | November 25, 2007 5:08 PM
27

@5 & 8: Intelligent design is a purposefully vague repackaging of creationism cooked up by lawyers (namely, Phillip Johnson--who is also, like BallardDan, an HIV/AIDS denialist) and think tanks (namely, the Discovery Institute). You may be under the impression that it's not incompatible with evolution because that's what ID proponents tell science-friendly audiences. But the fundamental purpose of ID is to undermine the theory of evolution via natural selection and thereby reestablish Christianity as a guiding force in Western society (not kidding--see the Wedge document).

I know a lot of Catholics--including my mother, who has a degree in biology--who have an intuition that God may have mysteriously "guided" evolution or perhaps "designed" the very process of natural selection itself. These intuitions don't pretend to be scientific ideas, they do not contradict evolution, and they don't constitute a belief in intelligent design "theory." They're just a way for the faithful to leave the door open for metaphysics, even as they respect the strictly material questions that science is concerned with. I just want to make that distinction clear.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a PR crock. Nobody really believes it unless he or she is also a fundamentalist Protestant Christian and kind of hopes or secretly holds that old-school creationism is also true.

Posted by annie | November 25, 2007 5:15 PM
28

Actually, pgreyy,

I don't think the theory of evolution is wrong. I just don't treat it as a dogma, like you and your friends here.

My whole point is that the Darwinists have much more in common with the ID'ers and other religions than they'd like to think.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 5:15 PM
29

No one is saying that science is infallible and never makes a mistake, (the way that religion does) The point is that when better information and evidence becomes available our theories do change. Of course science is open to scrutiny, thats what it fucking is! I am really really sorry that our school system has failed you so egregiously,and sadly, you're in the majority.
P.S. @ 20 you are so right on, that's why there is no foreseeable end to this ludicrous debate. We're getting it from both sides, the religious freaks AND the new-age-hippy-dippy mysticism, which, in some ways, is just as scary.

Posted by lauren | November 25, 2007 5:34 PM
30

I'm going to make a sincere effort this week. When documenting data into my lab notebook, I'm not going to be so goshdarn golobull ;)

Posted by sunday maggie | November 25, 2007 5:38 PM
31

Personally, I think we are the cosmic equivalent of some deity's Sea Monkey colony that he or she got tired of, and is letting to go to seed.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | November 25, 2007 5:41 PM
32

Well, #29,

you being the third person to insult me and the school system...

But maybe it's true.

The school system failed to create somebody who doesn't think for himself. They "lost" me on that one.

From what I understand, the educational system these days EXCELS at creating non-critical thinkers and textbook regurgitators. Perhaps that's why the Darwinists are battling so hard against the ID'ers. They know that the children of tomorrow aren't taught to think critically, only to regurgitate what they've been told. Now I understand why you guys are fighting so hard.

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 5:44 PM
33

You guys are taking BallardDan [I]far[/I] too seriously. Shucks, he's just hangin' out at the fillin' station in Dogpatch with his buddies Gomer and Goober. It's too much to expect him to actually have an open mind.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | November 25, 2007 5:45 PM
34

Just because you've read Thomas Kuhn (or a paragraph about him, more likely) doesn't mean you understand him, BallardDan.

Posted by Fnarf | November 25, 2007 5:48 PM
35

Got anything substantive Fnarf, besides insults?

Posted by BallardDan | November 25, 2007 5:50 PM
36

Well, BallardDan, I do hope that you and your "free-thinking ways" go to a tall building and step out of a window--because, evidently, you have the balls the rest of us don't have to not believe in gravity just because scientific knowledge exists to indicate that it exists.

Free-thinking isn't the same as simply ignoring the best information available.

Otherwise we'd think of the Republicans as free-thinkers more often than we do...

The scientific method is a process by which knowledge is gained. That is not a religious belief.

Intelligent design is anti-science. That is not a religious belief.

Has it really come to the point where merely believing in reality is considered dogmatic?

Posted by pgreyy | November 25, 2007 5:59 PM
37

Oh, for crying out loud, BallardDan, give it a rest already. You congratulate yourself for being the only one here who is thinking independently while the rest of us are just barfing up what we were taught in school. In other words, "I'm right and you're wrong!" What unmitigated arrogance. Sounds like something that would come from those yo-yos who believe in a seven day creation.

Posted by RainMan | November 25, 2007 6:02 PM
38

I think this entire heated discussion is m00t considering the fact that the entire Bible (especially Revelations) is a clear rip-off of Evangelion and is simply trying to ride on its coattails.

Posted by Saizou | November 25, 2007 6:04 PM
39

Anybody catch the swimming mechanism animation? Cool Stuff

I thought t it was hought ti was thoguht i thoguht iwas thgoputhy i thought epo[ng i thoughtwas.

Damn I wish cd's skipped like my old records. Specifically remember a few, but the one that's come's back to me upon what! is the "Rock the Casbah" 12" dance remix I had age 14. Third verse (not the same as the first, heheh) i think it was right after the "constant radio blare" airplane sample lazer effect - sometin like

"shoult put outta there */shoult put outta there */shoult put outta there */shoult put outta there */

ugh, memeory, WHOt is researching the limbic system catecholine interferences?

Posted by June Bee | November 25, 2007 6:17 PM
40

@38: Not to be picky, but it's Revelation, not Revelations. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a simple typo rather than a case of never having looked at the book in question.

Posted by RainMan | November 25, 2007 6:20 PM
41

I interpreted Annie's post as aimed at those who believe the earth was created in 7 days. My point was that ID'ers do not always believe in the 7 days. Quite frequently, those people are convinced by the strong scientific evidence for evolution.

Whether you think that ID is a conspiracy, or idiotic, etc. - that is fine. But a belief in a higher power does not = belief in 7 day creation.

I also think that anyone who has done even a small amount of intelligent research on the subject would be very hard pressed to deny evolution, and that the earth is much older than a few thousand years. Those I know who deny - are often those who blindly believe what their pastor, or parents, or some religious book tells them. It is really sad, as Annie said.

Posted by GW | November 25, 2007 6:28 PM
42

BallardDan @32: Exactly! NO ONE is teaching kids to think critically. That's why pro-ignorance bullshit like yours abounds unchecked in our society. Scientific illiteracy is a huge problem in this country. This "god in the gaps" thinking is running us into the fucking ground.

Posted by lauren | November 25, 2007 6:30 PM
43

You Darwinists! you're just as bad as the sphereists and their dogmatic insistence that the earth is round and not flat. I mean really, it's just a theory! Sure it might be supported by hundreds of years of non-stop advancement of data gathering that support it, but it is still just a theory - just as a flat earth is a viable theory. Why won't you teach the controversy? Okay, so there's not a scrap of evidence to support it, so what? Your dogmatic refusal to acknowledge alternate theories is so just like creationists. You act as if finding theories to fit observable data and rigorously testing them for veracity is more relevant and valid than my hair-brained beliefs pulled from ancient texts and glossed over with modern PR and legalese! How unscientific of you.

Posted by mike in oly | November 25, 2007 6:34 PM
44

@10:

"A 'theory' in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity." -MW

Although in everyday usage a theory means a conjecture, in science it means something much stronger than conjecture. In science, to say something is a theory is to say that it is or is very nearly a fact. This sense is clearest in generally uncontroversial theory names, e.g. the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, number theory, music theory, etc.

The fundamentalist tendency to misunderstand what a theory is is one of the underpinnings of their failure to convince the courts and others that ID is science.

Posted by S. M. | November 25, 2007 6:34 PM
45

Testing the theory of the internet... yup, here's my post. A predictable result that demonstrates science works. It doesn't PROVE any theories (like electromagnetism) but it conforms, consistently, to the theory. My lights turn on, my car starts, my airplane flights take off and land, my emails go through.

Testing religion..."Hello, God? You there? Anyone home?" Hmmm, no answer. That doesn't demonstrate anything. It doesn't PROVE there's no god, but I can't get any kind of result that reinforces a theory of God. In fact, all the evidence seems to suggest a complete lack of God... no voice from the heavens, no angelic visitations, no miracle cures, no parting seas, no resurrections. It's a bit of a dud.

So please stop calling science a religion. You are contradicting yourself every time you type on a plastic keyboard and look at an LCD screen. Science works.

Posted by grumpypants | November 25, 2007 6:43 PM
46

Gravity is the tin foil that Newtonians use to keep God out of their hearts and minds.

Posted by Aexia | November 25, 2007 6:57 PM
47

BallardDan, you're completely ignoring the most basic difference between science and religion: science is CHANGEABLE. Those of us who "believe" in evolution are NOT simply accepting the dogma that was put forth by Darwin in the origin of species. In fact, we've rejected about half of what darwin said because it's been proved wrong since then by better experiments. This is exactly what is so frusterating to us science types about religion. Once a religious leader puts forth a doctrine, the words are engraved in stone for eternity with no possible room for change or growth. A lot of what Jesus said was really pretty cool. And some religious people do make an important tradition out of keeping an open discussion about which parts of faith are still appropriate today. This is awesome and I totally respect it. I personally believe in God, or Mama, or a unifying force, or whatever you call it, and while I learn about evolutionary genetics in school I find it comforting to imagine that the god who created me admires my quest for knowledge. But I am continually frusterated by people who say that because there is some error in darwin's original theory, "darwinism" is suddenly a faith tradition just like creationism. We KNOW that there are gaps. Unlike religious fundamentalists, we strive every day to fill those gaps and correct any existing errors. Instead of killing those who don't agree, science is constantly discussing, debating, correcting and re-correcting itself to try to reconcile any conflicting ideas.

Posted by Jo Spot | November 25, 2007 7:03 PM
48

@41: I should have been clearer. The first part of my post was aimed at ID proponents (who, you're right, generally reject the notion that the earth was created in exactly 7 days); I find these people disingenuous and infuriating. The second part--beginning with the NYT Mag paragraph--was about young-earth (7-day) creationists. These, I merely pity.

Posted by annie | November 25, 2007 7:27 PM
49

Saturday was the 148th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species.

Assuming there's still some educated humans alive in 148 years, I'll bet they'll still be referencing Darwin. Intelligent design? Probably not.

Posted by gnossos | November 25, 2007 9:25 PM
50

Yes, I do have something substantive, Danny boy, but you can't grasp it. Catch the Kuhn reference? Read any of my other arguments, or the many other efforts here? YOU are the one with nothing, nothing but prejudice and a tight asshole mind.

Posted by Fnarf | November 25, 2007 11:12 PM
51

This might sound really weird. But in order for these people to maintain their beliefs that I have to have this strange disconnect. It's not impossible ... it's what you "believe" but you also know what actually "happened". Everything in between you don't think or dwell on too hard otherwise you will go mad. This might sound bizzare, but that is how people who studied evolution before the new wave of modern christian wackos came along by making these little disconnects. Basically, be religious when you are off the clock.

The other thing is ... intelegent design SEEMS to take off where people don't understand what happened. Like if you didn't understand how a computer worked, you can say that ... well god made it. Metaphysical argument is perfectly validated because you can't argue against, god through his divine intervention invented the computer. There was a great onion article about some guy who beleived in evolution but intelegent design only for the paleozoic era.

In short, people are fucking scared or stupid. They keep their faith like they keep their baby blankets, because they are truely comforting when they feel they are alone ... but check them in at the door and recognize that the blanket is only a blanket and doesn't protect you from all the elements outside.

Posted by OR Matt | November 26, 2007 5:44 AM
52

BallardDan.

Darwinism, evolution ... it's ... it's science because we ARE SUPPOSED TO QUESTION IT! Religion as I was taught going to catholic school was something that when you question ... you go to hell. Scientists don't question evolution because they fear of going to hell, they don't question it because they have run out of questions to ask. Why reinvent the wheel when the postulate just keeps helping move science foward. It's like the people at Cern deciding that Newton didnt' have it right and start dropping balls and starting from scratch.

Intelegent Design ... creationism ... is like looking at a painting and stating that it is a beautiful and saying analyze that.

A slightly more scientific question, is why are people enammored with the idea of intelegent design?

Those are questions of science!

Posted by OR Matt | November 26, 2007 5:56 AM
53

Dear BallardDan,

Please don't shoot the bus driver, at least while I'm riding. If you have any drano laying around, I'd suggest chugging it.

Thanks,

The People of Earth

Posted by wbrproductions | November 26, 2007 9:03 AM
54

Ken Hutcherson is the primary argument against Intelligent Design.

Posted by QuimbyMcF | November 26, 2007 9:57 AM
55

My impression has been that the "problem" of Belief vs. Science, typified in the I.D. vs evolutionary theory case, is that real science -- e.g. the various small hypotheses and tests that really give a theory validity -- is complex. Belief is simple, since, well all you have is the conjecture. This may imply a misunderstanding of how science actually works. "capsule" summaries can be simple, but almost necessarily, the evidence to back them up may not be.

Now, certainly, the main ideas behind evolution are simple to understand. However, "evolution" is a meta-theory that overarches a truly tremendous amount of smaller hypotheses and observation and testing from the macroscopic to the microscopic. Understanding the implications of these tests, is *not* necessarily easy.

When people accuse science of being a religion, what they are generally responding to is the need to rely on an authority to tell you the scientific consensus -- because practically, most people will not have the time or inclination to peruse every single evolutionary result and understand it's impact on the theory as a whole.


This isn't a bad thing, I don't grok WA state law and can't rebuild my car from scratch either -- to avoid wasting time, I rely on others who have gained some amount of trust on these matter to inform me of legal implications or what a particular rattling noise in the engine might mean.


None of this means I take things these people say on complete faith -- one thing that *is* simple to do is to check your sources and their track record according the community in question. *That* doesn't require an immense amount of understanding of the domain, and is actually prudent. This is a crucial, successful, part of the scientific process that has, tautologically, no direct analogue in the faith-based approach.


Posted by ES | November 26, 2007 11:17 AM
56

@55

That is a fun way to look at it. But what do you do when you KNOW your car mechanic is screwing you.

Maybe people find comfort in that all knowledge worth knowing can be found in a singular somewhat large and complex book (ie the bible). When there are so many of us who know that the amount of knowledge in this universe, both known and unknown is indeterminable. For most of us ... school is to learn where to look something up or in the case of science, how to figure it out.

Posted by OR Matt | November 26, 2007 12:18 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).