PZ Myers. 2005 Jan 19. A little thinking out of the box. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/a_little_thinking_out_of_the_box/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Wednesday, January 19, 2005
A little thinking out of the box
Nathan Newman is saying some interesting things about how we should deal with the Intelligent Design creationism movement and the issue of American secularism. It's a radically different perspective than the good guys/bad guys polarization we're usually dealing with, and so it's useful to think about and shake up some of the ol' cerebral calcifications. I'll run through some of the main themes, from the one that I think is completely wrong to some strong ideas I could get behind, although not without some worries.
1. One thing he's suggesting is that we shouldn't get hung up on the religious motives of the ID camp, and we should recognize some of their secular ideals, too. This is a serious mistake, I think, and gives them far too much credit—and unfortunately he undermines his own argument by not doing his homework.
The very fact that they see themselves initially engaged in academic debate shows a secular component of their work. The biggest mistake that many secularists make is not taking their opponents seriously. As I've said, I think the ID science is crap, but there's lots of crappy science that has been believed by respectable people for long periods of time. And much of ID is framed in subtle ways. For those unfamiliar with it, maybe you should check out the Science and Research section of the Discovery Institute. There's a hell of a lot of secular sounding critiques of Darwinism there, whatever the overall purpose of the research may be -- and let's not pretend that many advocates of Darwinism have not had other ideological goals that led them to be strong advocates of evolutionary change.
The subtle and secular critiques he brings up are a facade. Newman has read the Wedge document; it's hard to see how he can now claim that there is a serious secular component to what they are doing. The ID creationists recognize that science does have credibility and authority in American culture (and that's a strength we need to exploit more), so what they are doing is adopting the language and posture of science to pursue entirely religious goals. "Secular sounding critiques" is all they've got; there is no substance there. I really recommend Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Forrest and Gross as a solid look at what's really going on at the Discovery Institute beneath that veneer of fake science.
A minor problem: Newman also uses the term "Darwinist". That's a tell to us in biology. No one here uses that term—it's archaic and misleading and suggests a very narrow and specific subdomain of evolution. It's like referring to Christians as Athanasians. It'll leave most of them scratching their heads and wondering what the hell you're talking about, and confirm that you've got your information about us from suspect sources.
2. Another point Newman makes is not marred by misconceptions, and although it's completely counter to the assumptions of most evolution proponents, maybe it needs to be thought about. He suggests that the courtroom battles are distracting us from the job of winning over religious voters, and that maybe we should let the creationists slide a little of their crap into the schools, where it can be confronted.
Courts make secularists too intellectually and politically slack. The religious right is mobilizing broadly, not just at the ballot box but in the day-to-day lives of people to convince them that their values are the correct ones. Commentator Dan S. worries that if evolution and "intelligent design" end up in the same classroom, he doesn't think students will come out with the right evaluation of the evidence. But that's a problem in the larger society where parents aren't pushing for a fair evaluation of the evidence by their children. And that's where we need to organize, not just depend on courts to fix "the problem" over the objections of parents.
He's suggesting that not only has it weakened the broader cultural response by secularists to fundamentalists, but it has fueled a backlash by the fundamentalists. This is a point Susan Jacoby has also made in the NY Times.
At the beginning of the 20th century, however, America was well on its way to an accommodation between science and mainstream religion, now a fait accompli in the rest of the developed world, that pleases neither atheists nor theocrats manqués but works for almost everyone else. A growing number of Americans accepted both evolution and religion but considered it the responsibility of the church, not public schools, to sort out the role of God. This view was expressed in 1904 by Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist and a liberal Christian, who praised the move to exclude religious speculation from the teaching of life sciences.
The Scopes trial changed all that. Instead of being the nail in the coffin of creationism as many believe, the trial undermined the emerging accommodation between religion and science by intensifying the fundamentalists' conviction that acceptance of evolution would inevitably weaken any type of faith.
I worry about surrendering one of the few weapons a minority has in its fight for recognition in our society, but I think there is some interesting truth to these ideas. Maybe one of the things we need to do is stop thinking like an oppressed minority that needs court protection and flex our muscles a bit more, and perhaps even turn it all around and treat the fundamentalists as the minority. Although I'm actually more inclined to think we should continue the fight in the courts in addition to increasing our visibility in other venues.
3. Which leads into another idea that I, personally, find very compelling, but know from interactions with other members of the pro-evolution camp will encounter strong opposition from our own side: We need to assert secularism in public life more.
Seculars may fight the religious right at the ballot box today, but most do remarkably little to fight them in the spiritual realm of peoples day-to-day lives. Partly it is the complacency of insular secular worlds where they often just can't believe people actually believe in creation science, so they don't think it deserves a serious debate.
But what is clear is that we need more than mobilization at the ballot box; we need to take the fight for the free thought to the steets and pews of the country, much as has been done in response to each upsurge of orthodoxy in our history.
Now if pressing our case in the courts is triggering a backlash, I worry that aggressive proponents of the agnostic/atheist/secular might be even more threatening, and Newman doesn't try to address this contradiction…but hey, my readers know me. Yes, let's loose the godless firebrands!
He also touches on something that irks me: the idea that religion and science should be compatible. They aren't, they really aren't. Religion can make itself compatible by adopting a very abstract position, the idea of a largely non-interventionist, watchmaker god, but that isn't the kind of religion that is causing us trouble, and it's not the kind of religion our leaders and the public are imagining.
Secularists often spend their time talking about the compatibility of religious beliefs with secular rules in order to justify the legal basis of those court decisions. Which weakens those secularists in the cultural realm to directly confront religious fundamentalists to say their beliefs aren't compatible with science. What is striking in reading Freethinkers is how vibrant public debate was in the 19th century over these core issues of religious truth.
America was never the religious theocracy imagined by the religious right, but the important changes in social values in our society have come not from court rules but from a vibrant democratic debate. We need to continue that tradition of democratic mobilization on secular values and abandon the elite crutch of the courts.
I agree, but see one problem: where is the vigorous, loud spokesperson for freethought in America who can do all this for us? Ingersoll is long gone, and I've noticed a tendency in pro-evolution arguments to instead emphasize the compatibility of religion and science, and to promote rational religious people as our representatives; atheists should stay in their closets and be very, very quiet, lest they scare off the skittish Christians we want to join us.
What we need is to clearly declare our fellowship with the reasonable theists who believe in reason and science, and at the same time be willing to proudly acknowledge our affiliation with the community of atheists and agnostics. That isn't said often enough, and all too often there is a sense that the atheists among us (Dawkins, for instance) are a detriment to the cause of good science and evolution. That is killing us. It reinforces the bias of the religious that atheism is something shameful. After all, if we can't be proud of ourselves, why should they be?
Posted by PZ Myers on 01/19 at 10:27 AM
Creationism • Godlessness • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Godlessness • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
PZ-- I never said that the ID folks has "secular ideals", only that they had secular arguments, a key distinction.
Here is the maybe subtle legal point -- but the First Amendment doctrine is all subtle and twisted subtle legal points -- but if folks are willing to play the secular game and marshall secular arguments around ID, what basis do courts have for knocking it out of the classroom by judicial fiat. Do we really want the courts playing mind-reader to discern, "no really, your goal is religious, so whatever you say, you lose"?
So if a Catholic lawmarker supports expanded welfare payments because of religious doctrine to aid the poor, does that law get struck down?
And-- I raised this point -- if you or I care A LOT about evolutionary theory not just because it's accurate but because it reinforces our non-theist view of the world, does that mean evolution gets kicked out of the classroom? Folks care about a lot of thing that are taught badly or not at all in schools, but a lot of folks (including you and me) get especially exercised when they mess with evolution. Might that not be tied to our ethical and cosmological views of the world?
The point is that while I am skeptical of court power in general, I am completely and unutterly opposed to courts trying to read minds. I may think the ID people are playing a sophisticated (and yes, sophist-like game) of mimicking scientific talk, but if they are willing to do so and present all their arguments in that language, they've paid the ticket of admission to bypass the establishment clause.
That's my point.#: Posted by Nathan Newman on 01/19 at 10:44 AM -
In the evolution vs. creationism/ID conflict, we have to maximize our strengths--and our main strength, by far, is the fact that the evidence is all on our side. The battle for public acceptance of evolution will be won simply because of this fact.
As biologists, our collective opinion carries weight in the public arena. The problem is, so many biologists are either unaware of or disinterested in this issue. I work with about 25 other biologists, and when I came here maybe 2 or 3 of them even knew what Intelligent Design was. And out of them, only one took it at all seriously. Of course since I've been here I've done what I can to "rally the troops" and make as many people as possible aware of the issue. But truth be told, most of them either aren't interested or are too busy to bother.
Like so many other issues, I fear my co-workers won't feel compelled to do anything until we've already entered into a crisis stage. That seems to be pretty normal. "I'll worry about it when it becomes a problem"
And I think Nathan is a bit naive about exactly what the DI has in mind. They don't give a fig about science--they actually view science as a problem that needs to be fixed. Their hope is that they will first weaken evolution instruction in public schools, then get ID installed as an "alternative", then once their ranks are swelled, they can do the same at the college level, then we'll soon see the type of science they have in mind: A "science" whose findings and conclusions are first subject to a Christian filter, the likes of which we see in the "statements of faith" from the creationist organizations. IOW, if the data disagrees with their version of Christianity, the data is wrong, period.
These people want nothing less than to overthrow our secular society and to do away with objective science altogether. In that light, giving them any ground, no matter how inconsequential it may seem at the time, is playing right into their hands.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:03 AM -
OK, I can see the distinction. I think, though, that the current incarnation of ID does not require us to read minds to see their religious goals -- it is written plainly in their documents. It is true that if we come to rely on that, there will be a new incarnation of the creationist movement that will be far more scrupulous in scrubbing god out of their manifestos, and then we're not going to be able to use the tried-and-true techniques, and we will have a form of creationism that has escaped the establishment clause. The Discovery Institute has not done that.
A better strategy would be to focus on the fact that it is not science, not that it is religion. It hasn't passed any of the hurdles our disciplines put up to prevent crackpottery and pseudoscience from gaining credibility.
I don't think that we get especially exercised about evolution because it's compatible with secularism -- it's because it is especially targeted by the religious right. If they were gunning for chemistry, I'd be just as opposed. -
Nathan states,
I am completely and unutterly opposed to courts trying to read minds.
Yeah, but with Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, the courts don't have to do any mind reading. The religious motivations are clearly and unambiguously laid out in black and white.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:15 AM -
But the point is that courts shouldn't knock out laws because the advocates have religious motives, only if they can't present secular motives as well.
The problem with the first wave of creationism is that they proposed teaching creationism as a religious principle. They presented no secular evidence, so there was nothing but religion on the table.
While the ID folks may have clear religious motives, they have secular arguments to go along with it. As I said, because most people are religious, they pass many laws with religious motives. The question is whether there are non-religious arguments for the law's passage. If there are, courts should stay out of it.
Now, to repeat, that doesn't mean secular advocates should then stay out; rather, they should be more involved in mobilizing the population to fight bad science and mobilizing parents where ID is taught as to its flaws.#: Posted by Nathan Newman on 01/19 at 11:28 AM -
Also, I think it's inaccurate of Nathan to guess that we want evolutionary theory taught because it reinforces our non-theist worldview. I don't think I'm alone in wanting it taught because if society says that public schooling is going to include a science curriculum, then that curriculum should be good science. And that's what evolutionary theory is, not just because of the overwhelming consensus about it, but because you or I can read about what it is, and then read scores of studies that back it up.
My first bone to pick with the ID-in-schools movement is certainly its religious agenda. But even if they could obscure that to a court's satisfaction, they're still trying to push bad science on educators by fooling parents and school boards into thinking they have a scientific leg to stand on. If someone tried to push schools to tell students they should seriously consider Lysenkoism, Velikovsky, or homeopathy, I'd be pitching a fit, too.
Yes, scientific consensus is occasionally turned on its head. Yes, students should be taught that nothing in science is ever proven with finality. But if we're teaching science, we can't just give kids some critical thinking skills and expect them to derive all the great theories in study hall. We have to choose which theories to actually teach them in depth, which tentative ideas to mention as examples of real scientific debate, and which crackpot bullshit to just leave out. And well, sorry to sound undemocratic, but parents and school boards aren't the ones to make those decisions. Where the courts should come in is to tell the parents and school boards that if they're gonna provide a science education, they need to let credentialed scientific educators choose the subject matter.
Well, while I was composing this, PZ nutshell-ified most of it for me, but there's my spiel anyway..#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:31 AM -
"...the evidence is all on our side. The battle for public acceptance of evolution will be won simply because of this fact." (Jason, comment #2.)
One may hope, but is there really basis to think this will in fact be the case?
"A better strategy would be to focus on the fact that it is not science, not that it is religion." (Myers, comment #3.) Unless it's religion, there's no constitutional basis to keep it out of public school classrooms. It is not unconstitutional to teach "bad science" or even "not science." If you eliminate the "establishment of religion" aspect, you've changed the debate to one on public policy, and let "voting" in.
"...the idea that religion and science should be compatible. They aren’t, they really aren’t. Religion can make itself compatible by adopting a very abstract position, the idea of a largely non-interventionist, watchmaker god, but that isn’t the kind of religion that is causing us trouble, and it’s not the kind of religion our leaders and the public are imagining." (Myers, main post.)
This is the crucial point, never to be underemphasized. I'm afraid I think that it follows from this that it's a battle to the end, with winners and losers, and not something that ultimately can be compromised.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:33 AM -
I'm glad you made that last point, PZ.
Newman sez: "... but a lot of folks (including you and me) get especially exercised when they mess with evolution."
Ahem. If a dog in the neighborhood was biting kids, I think just about everybody decent would get angry about it. It wouldn't have to bite YOUR kids before you'd notice and take some action.
I oppose IDers, and a lot of this other aggressive goddy nonsense because they're ATTACKING. They're not just targeting evolution. They're targeting education. They're targeting government. They're targeting TV and radio broadcasting. They're targeting courthouses, and the legal system itself. They're targeting the cover of Time and Newsweek (just about once a frickin' month, it seems).
Scary as hell, a few years back, they targeted the United States presidency.
News flash: they got it. And it's costing us, you and me, some of our freedom, some of our safety and well-being, some of our peace of mind.
I'd say we have some strong reasons for being "exercised." -
Dr. Myers writes,
What we need is to clearly declare our fellowship with the reasonable theists who believe in reason and science, and at the same time be willing to proudly acknowledge our affiliation with the community of atheists and agnostics.
This may be too much to ask, but maybe the "reasonable theists" should also take a stand, proudly acknowledging their affiliation with those secularists who care about the truth.
It's hard to get much accomplished when many of our simplest arguments are "shot down" (dismissed) with responses that label us "liberals" or "elitists" or "intellectuals" or "atheists."
Wouldn't it do science some good if there was an association of strong-willed religious biologists, all of whom promote the teaching of evolution?
Of course, this would just be a lot of, "Come on, everyone. Science is compatible with religion." But, would this be so bad, if science is ultimately to gain?
Personally, I don't have issues with "sharing" biology with the religious, even if they do worship PZ's "watchmaker God."
As was discussed on another thread, one doesn't necessarily need a naturalistic philosophy to be methodologically naturalistic, or to hold locally defined naturalistic viewpoints.
Yes, from my point of view, the fundamentalist evolutionary biologist would probably be selling themselves short - both in their science and religion.
But, if it allows the general public to better accept (and practice?) empirical science, then I can look the other way if at the end of every scientific statement, my religious counterpart whispers under his/her breath that "God did it."
After all, a completely epiphenomenal god is one I feel a lot more comfortable around than the one I'm used to hearing about.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:44 AM -
Nathan states,
But the point is that courts shouldn’t knock out laws because the advocates have religious motives, only if they can’t present secular motives as well.
Granting that point for the sake of argument--what secular motive is behind Intelligent Design?
Jeff asks,
One may hope, but is there really basis to think this will in fact be the case?
Yep. Facts and truth always win out over lies and propaganda. We may not see the day, but it will happen.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 11:50 AM -
Maybe it's a bit late to bring back the subtle legal questions, but I seem to recall we've recently seen a pretty detailed discussion of just what the legal tests are here.
(BTW, on 'reading minds', intent is usually a part of the definition of a crime-- but there's no magic involved in establishing it. Intentions are not purely private states hidden 'inside' us. They are established by evidence of past behaviour, statements, and general common-sense psychology. Skeptical doubts about knowledge of other minds are not 'reasonable doubts' in the legal sense. )
Intent is a part of the constitutionality test-- in the Cobb case as I understand it, the judge accepted secular intent (I'm inclined to say both that he refused to read minds on this, and that the stated secular purpose of teaching critical thinking skills re science was in itself reasonable enough, even if it was grounded in bad information and misunderstanding of science).
But the other 2 (as I recall) have to do broadly with effect,i.e. does the action being challenged have the effect of establishing religion. Here the judge is free to take account both of the agenda that's being pursued and of the status of the scientific evidence on each side. And it's pretty clear that, given that evidence (a tiny minority of 'scientists', including very very few biologists, endorsing various uniformly bad arguments against evolution, the explicit religious motivations of the principle figures in ID, etc.) the Cobb county insert would have the effect of establishing religion. So it's the evidence that creates the asymmetry between ID and defenders of the place of evolution in the curriculum, as Nathan seems to recognize-- but that asymmetry also has a perfectly legitimate role in these court cases.
As to going out there and winning hearts and minds, I think it's very important to recruit help from theists (especially Christians) who accept evolution. These people should be up in arms over the way ID and creationist representatives frame the debate. They are being told they aren't really theists or Christians, that they're untrue to their faith, that they're (to borrow a different style of rhetoric) running-dog lackeys of the atheist hordes... I'd very much like to have them allied with us on the science issues, and more publicly and forthrightly opposed to silly attempts to inject theologically dubious religious dogmas into the scientific arena.
I'm proud to be an atheist, and ready to defend that view on its own terms. But it's not a scientific debate, and when it comes to the science, we share with moderate theists an intellectually honest, theologically and constitutionally defensible understanding of the line that divides religion and science. ID has made a big success out of a big-tent approach to their audience: Everyone's in if they're against naturalistic evolution. I think we need to be clear about the big tent issues that unite us too. (And I think we can do this without playing IDers' dishonest game of hiding our differences).#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 01/19 at 12:23 PM -
Following on Jason's point, it does appear that IDers are trying to muddy 'secular' and 'scientific', and Nathan is buying that argument. If IDers are claiming that they have a scientific theory that needs further research, but it is being quashed by entrenched evolutionary interests, then where are their studies to present their case? They are arguing against evolution, but not really for ID in any factual, scientific way.
Their bluster really seems to be about damaging the reputation of science, and the scientific method not just evolution. If they have a secular motive, it is to classify science as a philosophy so their competing philosophy of ID can get equal time. They are fairly oblivious to the fact that there are lots of other competing philosophies with better acceptance and grounding, so ID might lose in that arena, too.
In the end though, they believe that their theory is divine, therefor it will prevail. Which therefor means it has no place in public school. We still have to fight the battle that it is not science AND that it is religiously based.
Interesting side note, when I read the Jacoby piece and forwarded it to PZ this morning, I was struck by how abortion could have been substituted for evolution and Roe for Scopes and the article would read pretty much the same. I think this is another clue about the 'religious' intent of our opponents. Many of them really are convinced that the idea of separation of church and state is a bad idea. I suggest they move to Israel or Afghanistan or northern Ireland to test the comfort of this concept.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 12:46 PM -
A couple of points: Get real. You do not have to know the intent of the ID proponents to know that this "theory" rests on a god. Any being that can design (by the way, who creates the designs?) all the life forms on Earth is a god or god-like being. We don't have to let the IDers get away with saying the designer isn't a god, any more than we have to let them say night is day.
Second, religious belief is not susceptible to reason. I don't think you can convince any true believer of the truth of your claims or the falsity of his by reason, so you might as well just let that idea go. Maybe you can convince reasonable religious people that evolution is true as long as it does not threaten their religious beliefs. As soon as it does, however, you have lost your argument. People don't believe in a god because they have been rationally convinced of it, they believe in god because they have to. Their mental wellbeing depends on the existence of a god to give their lives and deaths meaning. You are not going to debate them out of that kind of belief. PZ, I'm afraid that as long as you make evolution and science a threat to the religion of most people, you will not be able to win the day. I fear that there too many fundamentalists who want a theocracy, and too many other religious but reasonably sane people who see no harm in having religion permeate public life. If we antagonize them, we may end up with a nightmare of a Constitutional amendment. We have already seen that many Americans don't think we need all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 01:02 PM -
But the point is that courts shouldn’t knock out laws because the advocates have religious motives, only if they can’t present secular motives as well.
That's the point, though -- they can't. They've put a pretense of secular cause, but it's shallow and wrong. You seemed to think that because they use the language of science, it was sufficiently secular, but it's not.
I think another point, too, is the order that it was done. Did they first have a religious reason, and then try to pick and choose among the evidence to support a pre-determined answer? Or did they objectively assess the evidence, and then come to a reasonable conclusion? Seriously, if there was a body of evidence that supported the idea that aliens (or Jesus) seeded the earth with life, I'd be saying that ought to be taught in science classes. In science, it's not what answer you get, but how you arrive at it, that's most important.
I'm pounding on this one point, but I should also mention that I think your other ideas are valuable. We should be emphasizing the positive, scientific evidence for evolution rather than the negative connotations of the DI's religious foundation. We should be pointing out more the inadequacies of ID creationism's science, with less concern about their motives. -
Nathan Newman writes
"While the ID folks may have clear religious motives, they have secular arguments to go along with it."
Um, in fact, they do not. Why do you continue to push this point, Nathan? What is the "secular" argument for allowing non-science fantasies about mysterious alien beings to be taught in public school science classrooms as scientific facts?
The take home lesson from Nathan's posts is, in my opinion, that those of us who have been paying attention to the ID peddlers need to start speaking with one voice and providing our allies (like Nathan) who haven't been paying close attention with the rhetorical tools needed to smash the peddlers, or at least with an education such that our allies don't use ID-doublespeak terms like "Darwinist". At this stage in the game, that's like an abortion rights supporter calling himself a baby killer in a debate.
For example, I totally absolutely agree with PZ when he says "A better strategy would be to focus on the fact that[ID "theory"] is not science, not that it is religion. It hasn’t passed any of the hurdles our disciplines put up to prevent crackpottery and pseudoscience from gaining credibility."
And in that regard, here are some rhetorical tips to pass along to anyone that is still "confused":
1) Never never ever say ID "theory" without putting one or both of the terms in quotation marks. It is not a scientific theory. Don't pretend that is.
2) Never ever ever refer to any "intelligent designer". That is the creationist's preferred term. Instead, always refer to the "mysterious intelligent alien beings with awesome powers". And note the plural!! Enormous complex designs and construction projects are never carried out by a single entity. And if designing and creating all the diverse life forms that ever lived on earth doesn't require beings to possess awesome powers, then nothing does.
3) Never ever refer to "ID scientists". There are no scientists that STUDY "ID". There are only a few third-tier degreed academics who PEDDLE "ID theory." They are "ID theory" peddlers. And charlatans. Sometimes they are disgusting liars, too.
4) As a group the "ID theory" peddlers may also be accurately referred to as members of the Johnsonite Christian sect, referring to Phil Johnson, a lawyer and non-scientists and fundamentalist CHristian who helped fashion the ID stategy, who is also an AIDS-denier, and who is essentially the Osama bin Laden of the anti-science fundamentalist movement. If you refer to the ID peddlers as "fundamantalists", they'll all come back and say some garbage like, "No, we're evangelicals." Just call them Johnsonite Christians or members of the Johnsonite Christian sect. This nomenclature is unambiguous, accurate, and more informative than any other I am aware of.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 01:16 PM -
Good post. My main concern about this stuff is the sort of action/reaction loop between atheism and creationism, where atheist opposition strengthens the creationist side. Apart from agreeing that any deity that could conceivably exist must by definition be a deity compatible with science (and must therefore be irrelevant to scientific practice), I don't really care about the argument between positive atheists and Christians.
My worry is that the GOP derives a great deal of strength from pretending to a respect for religion that it doesn't actually have, and that a lot of their theocratic moves amount to poking a stick into the hornets' nest...stirring up trouble so they can raid the public coffers, while everyone's busy arguing over the Meaning of Life. It's very hard to know how much of the ID advocacy is just a fundraising stunt by the Right. But the way to defeat it, I think, is by pointing out that it's not only compatible with non-Christian religions, but also contradicts certain Bible stories, and is therefore one of the Devil's Stratagems. The young-earthers already believe that, by and large...we just need a Wedge of our own to exploit those disagreements, and turn them against each other.#: Posted by Philalethes on 01/19 at 01:34 PM -
Mark said:
PZ, I’m afraid that as long as you make evolution and science a threat to the religion of most people, you will not be able to win the day. I fear that there too many fundamentalists who want a theocracy, and too many other religious but reasonably sane people who see no harm in having religion permeate public life. If we antagonize them, we may end up with a nightmare of a Constitutional amendment. We have already seen that many Americans don’t think we need all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
In this last election, I watched the Dems lay back and be generous and quiet and reasonable while the Reps screamed vicious lies.
In the current political climate, I don't think the strategy of sitting back and being inoffensive WORKS.
The problem is not that we're endangering ourselves by slightly raising our voices, the problem is that we haven't even BEGUN to be aggressive.
I still say the best approach is to go all-out, to go so far as to get the membership rolls of fundamentalist churches and target their kids. Not for the drugs and sex which we all so frequently and unreservedly enjoy <snicker>, but for the RATIONALITY, the SCIENCE, the PRINCIPLES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT that make our modern lives of relative health, sanity and safety possible.
I like the idea I popped on a week or so back, nicely but aggressively recruiting kids into "Darwin's Rangers." Telling them explicitly that biology is what it is, and that tent revivals ain't where you find the truth of it.
Personally, I'd go farther by saying that there's no such things as gods, that the whole universe works by the principles of physics, that we have one life to live and that we should therefore live it every day the best way we know how, and that only by actually being good to each other can we be good to each other. -
I completely agree with point 2. It is myopic to attempt to outlegislate your opponents without also changing the culture. Sooner or later, they will outnumber you, and then your beautiful litigative frameworks will be smashed. It also sets you up for accusations of "elitism."
I think there are two points that need to be made regarding shifting culture. First, we need to make people aware of how much hump-busting labor is involved in getting a life sciences PhD. It isn't all wine and cheese parties - it's hundreds of hours of poring over literature and texts and the lab bench. And at the end of it, you are equipped to do research that maybe saves someone's life, or stops a deleterious disease. Our opponents are mischaracterizing us by conflating us with the image of the lazy, wealthy, foolish, morally bankrupt liberal bureaucrat - a common figure in right wing culture. We can block this easily by saying "but I work my ass off."
When an ID advocate asks "Who are these elitists to tell us what science is?" we have to answer, saying "We are your doctors. We are your technicians. I did research X (explain basics of research) with medical applications Y (explain how research has medical applications, if possible). I am proud of what I did and proud that my country gave me the opportunity to do it. What the hell has this guy done?"
Second, we should consider mandatory religion class in every public high school in America. Cover Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and everything else still worshipped today. Examine also how religious sentiment influences social policy, and whether this is a good, bad, avoidable, or unavoidable thing.
This should at least get young people thinking about religion, and I imagine it would please the religious, but politically mild Americans considerably. It would draw some of the ire away from us to say "But you don't have to teach ID in science class - you can teach it in religion class, since it is so heavily influenced by religion," then show how all the advocates of ID have essentially already made that point.
Thoughts?#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:14 PM -
Hank writes
"I watched the Dems lay back and be generous and quiet and reasonable while the Reps screamed vicious lies."
I agree but even that statement is being kind. I saw Democratic pundits go on TV wholly unprepared to attack the most predictable and dishonest Republican spin points that could ever be lobbed in their direction.
And there were many instances where would-be Democratic pundits went on TV and recited from the Republican script! And that is why would be "liberals" like Nathan Newman need to be called on the carpet and given a quick education.
Fundamentally what needs to change is the belief that political positions which are based unambiguously on religious beliefs can't be questioned by examining the rationality of those beliefs. As it stands right now, when someone makes a religious claim we're supposed to accept it as face value out of a notion of "respect" for that person's religious beliefs. And religiously motivated politicians exploit this fact ruthlessly.
If people get pushy with their religion and start throwing their religion into the public sphere -- into goddamn laboratories, for chrissake -- then they must be prepared to see their religion treated with the same lack of respect that is afforded to, e.g., racists and anti-semites, who attempt to turn their "deeply held" irrational beliefs into a local reality that others have to "deal with."
And how does that process start? It starts like this: the Johnsonite Christian sect that is redefining science to include the actions of mysterious deities is composed of some of the most loathesome charlatans and double-speaking frauds this country has ever seen.
Repeat ad nauseum. Take it to the bank. Tell your neighbors. Tell your co-workers. Express your outrage. And when some Christian you know whines about being persecuted, tell them that they are pathetic and ask them why people of other religions in this country don't demand that the Federal government proslytize for them.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:25 PM -
PZ wrote...
"He also touches on something that irks me: the idea that religion and science should be compatible. They aren’t, they really aren’t. Religion can make itself compatible by adopting a very abstract position, the idea of a largely non-interventionist, watchmaker god, but that isn’t the kind of religion that is causing us trouble, and it’s not the kind of religion our leaders and the public are imagining."
PZ, this statement first seems to me to contradict itself. You start by asserting (confessing a belief?) that science and religion are "really not" compatible. You then go on to describe (if a bit dismissively) a religious view of god that seems perfectly compatible with science as a methodology for explaining natural phenomena. I'll agree that subscribing to a "fundamentalist" view of god may present significant obstacles to understanding and accepting science, but that is a much narrower statement than to say science and religion are incompatible. Which did you mean?#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:27 PM -
If there's a valid secular basis for objections to a scientific theory, there'll be no need for a disclaimer sticker as the scientific literature itself will act as such a disclaimer. So on the very face of it, the actions of the Cobb County School Board are suspect. Ask yourself what's more likely - that said board members are acting as peer reviews of the actual science involved, or that they have other non-scientific motivations? Given the facts of the case, I think the judge hardly had to read minds to reach the logical conclusion that the evolution stickers had a religious purpose.
#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:31 PM
-
I think courses in comparative religion would be an excellent innoculation against religious fervor. Maybe if christians learned how strongly their religion was influenced by zoroastrianism they might not be so smug.
#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:34 PM
-
Wait, though, I think you're being too harsh on Newman.
The simple problem is that when we're asked, "why reject ID?", the right answer is not "Because it is religious." That's too sweeping, and damns many lesser problems, and gives religious people no reason at all to join forces with us.
Better answers are "The DI is packed with untrustworthy charlatans and frauds" (as you suggest), or "There is no evidence for ID," or even "ID is crummy theology and even worse science." I see Newman's point as more of a call for strong, confident arguments for science and against the corruption of science. -
Shaggy: I mean both. I don't see religion as compatible with science, but since science will always be incomplete, I can see how someone might be able to wedge their deity into those big holes in our understanding. A science-friendly god is a god-of-the-gaps, which to me is pretty much no god at all. And I suspect that to most religious people, it's similarly a non-religion.
Fideists might like it, though, but they're awfully rare. -
To go back to the original issue that started these debates, the stickers down in Cobb County didn't even require the teaching of ID or even mention it. All the stickers said was " Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
That sentence is literally true, just as any theoretical explanation of myriad measured facts is always a theory. Yes, they are trying to suck people into thinking implicitly that theories are purely speculative and not to understand that some theories are respected and widely accepted, while others are considered loony.
But it's hard to treat a call for critical thinking as the establishment of theocracy.
I guess my bottom-line is that fighting to keep evolution in the classroom seems like a worthy fight, but fighting in the courts against including criticisms of it is a losing PR battle. We either need to win that fight in the political realm and tear apart the ID arguments, so that parents don't want it in the classroom because it's a waste of their tax dollars.#: Posted by Nathan Newman on 01/19 at 02:39 PM -
Good points, G-Do.
Q “Who are these elitists to tell us what science is?”
A They are the same "elitists" you'll beg to testify for you in court when your unborn child is killed because your doctor gave you the wrong drug.
And fyi, worrying about avoiding this "elitist" charge is a waste of time unless you are actually trying to field a candidate or speaker and you want to avoid someone who looks or sounds elitist, e.g., a refined British accent is unhelpful but a Southern one is golden.
Many of the rubes who buy into the creationist script believe that anyone who has an undergraduate degree and doesn't praise God every other sentence is an elitist. There is nothing that can be done.
G-do also writes
Our opponents are mischaracterizing us by conflating us with the image of the lazy, wealthy, foolish, morally bankrupt liberal bureaucrat - a common figure in right wing culture. We can block this easily by saying “but I work my ass off.”
When arguing with evangelical creationist apologists it is useful to point out, after informing them that they have been taken for a sucker by the ID peddlers, that the position of the ID peddlers boils down essentially to a gigantic "Fxxx you" to the thousands upon thousands of hard working scientists -- including many Christians -- who dedicated their lives over the past century to providing us all with a greater understanding of biological processes that are common to all life forms, including humans. What entitles this microscopic community of charlatans to use public schools as a platform from which to pronounce the rest of the world's scientists as frauds who have wasted their lives trying to find natural explanations for diseases such as childhood leukemia and muscular dystrophy?#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:45 PM - Nathan you have to think of the DI as an advertising firm and IDCists as their 'client' who's hired them to market IDC. They're not the slightest bit motivated to present quality information. They're all about soundbites, sizzle, and misleading their Christian victims. In this case they're conflating the colloquial definition of the term theory, with the scientific one, and they're confusing the fact of common descent with theoretical evolutionary mechanisms to boot. The idea behind the sticker isn't to enhance scientific knowledge but to restrict it. 'Teach the conroversy' and 'critical thinking' are other examples of sound bites and slogans. There is no controversy outside of what they fabricate, and the last thing they want is critical thinking.
-
"But it’s hard to treat a call for critical thinking as the establishment of theocracy."
It's not a call for critical thinking at all though, but rather an attempt to cast FUD on the specific subject of evolution. If the board had put a sticker in saying that all science is provisional and subject to revision, that certainly would have passed the establishment clause smell test.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:55 PM -
Nathan Newman
But it’s hard to treat a call for critical thinking as the establishment of theocracy."
Why does sticker "calling for critical thinking" only appear in biology textbooks, Nathan?
Try answering that question without repeating a myth and without mentioning religion. Good luck.
Also, I notice you pretending that the test for violation of the establishment clause is whether an action "establishes a theocracy". Interestingly, that is how creationists like to interpret the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Once again, I remain mystified by your claim that you have been paying attention to this issue for "years."#: Posted by on 01/19 at 02:57 PM -
'That sentence is literally true, just as any theoretical explanation of myriad measured facts is always a theory.'
It was not literally a true sentence. Evolution IS A FACT. It is a theory and a FACT. Hence the sticker doesn't pass the stink test and should be removed.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:02 PM -
Hank -
You are making sense. And, the Democratic party will have some big decisions to make in the near future.
This past year, Democrats tried very hard to not "rock the boat" - by keeping a relatively low profile, and hoping to not "scare away" any reasonable undecided voters.
So, what's the next step?
Last year, the Democrats did receive a large number of popular votes.
Maybe the current strategy is working well, and maybe each year a few more reasonable undecided voters will choose to join the side of truth and justice. Maybe this country can overcome their obsession with bigotry and ancient beliefs and false worlds.
Or, maybe the religious right will continue to grow and receive strength in numbers - if only through there ignorant lies on behalf of God. If this is the case, we must alter our strategies.
Unfortunately, it may be too soon to tell which way we should go.
Maybe after another 4 years (8 or 12?) of blatant hypocrisy, intolerance, and FAILURE, the "moral" right will learn that a church probably shouldn't run the country.
But, you're right. We must take care not to wait too long before we take appropriate action.
Freedom isn't easy to earn, or keep. It's probably just as difficult to get back once it's gone.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:03 PM -
If it wasn't for 9/11, Bush would have never been able to get away with a war in Iraq. When the cultural half-life of 9/11 is passed, so will the current Republican political ascendency. All the rest, the moral values, the economy, etc. is just so much noise in comparison.
#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:16 PM
-
Have ID put up or shut up. Set up a public "survivor" contest
to solve some biological issue, allocate public funds to an ID based
"clan" and an evo/devo based "clan", and see who can solve the
problem, making the results open for public access.
NASA's atrobiology department has a fiscal year budget of $71 million. Astrobiology is the the only science without a subject matter, and ID is a subject matter without science, so allocate some of the budget to solve a biological problem.
If ID is not science, then it should fail miserably. Vote it out.
Public failure would be the best way to make ID go away.
If ID wins, well maybe it should be looked at.
There's plenty of problems to solve: HIV, cancer, maleria.
It's a win/win situation. Astrobiology gets publicity and a purpose.
A problem gets solved, and the ID controversity goes away.
ID becomes the alchemy of the 21st century, or an accepted science.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:25 PM -
"When the cultural half-life of 9/11 is passed, so will the current Republican political ascendency."
And then the time will be ripe for the fading Republican administration to ignore another memo about some nutcase determined to attack inside the United States. Maybe this time it'll be some Iraqi woman who lost her mind when she saw her family "accidentally" killed by US soldiers.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:26 PM -
"If ID is not science, then it should fail miserably. Vote it out."
It's already been Federally funded and it failed miserably. The test was whether third parties praying to mysterious intelligent alien beings (for whom their is no evidence) had an effect on patient recovery.
Answer: no, unless you help the mysterious alien beings by cooking the data.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:31 PM -
PZ wrote...
"A science-friendly god is a god-of-the-gaps, which to me is pretty much no god at all."
Hmmm...if you took a poll of religious people who are also scientists and asked them if they relegate their god's existence to the gaps in scientific understanding, I bet you would find few who would say that they do. On the other hand, such a relegation seems precisely what IDCism is all about. It seems to me that your assumption about what god must be like for a religious person who also understands science doesn't do anyone, except perhaps an IDCist, any good.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:43 PM -
MAB, the only problem with your example is that everyone is still saying prayer helps patients recover. This fiction has entered the public consciousness as fact and it hasn't been dislodged. It's just too touchy-feel-goody for Readers Digest readers to let go of.
#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:46 PM
-
...allocate public funds to an ID based “clan” and an evo/devo based “clan”, and see who can solve the problem, making the results open for public access.
See who can solve the problem?
The "ID 'theory'" clan has already solved the multitude of problems facing science today. The massively encompassing article was just published yesterday! Please refer to God et al.
In reality, this "contest" is played out everyday in research laboratories across the world.
Noteworthy, is that the IDists haven't once even shown up to practice, let alone for the big game.
Science, on the whole, has done just fine without their competition. Why? Because we have our own competition - that of other reputable scientists.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:54 PM -
Mark
Well, let's wedge the un-efficacy of third party prayer into our public education program. That is actually a fantastic example of the unfortunate consequences of sticking religion where it doesn't belong. Not only was it a huge waste of money but at the end of the day we end up confirming what some of us already knew but a lot folks were just afraid of: third party prayer has no measurable effects on patient outcome.
It's the same sort of effect this "ID theory" garbage is going to have. The only way it can ever be taught and still pass the constitutional test is if the whole story about "ID theory" is taught, including the story of its peddlers. It's not a flattering story. It's certainly not flattering to the Johnsonite Christians, arguably contemporary Christianity's weakest and most troubled sect.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 03:55 PM -
Let’s look at this from the perspective of the people who provide the “movement” in the “ID Movement”—-the parents. As long as some of the most outspoken defenders of evolution also happen to be outspoken atheists (e.g. Gould, Dawkins), the perception among parents of school-aged children will be that if evolution is taught unopposed and is taught “as fact”, their innocent, God-fearing, Bible-believing children are at risk of becoming “evolutionists” and thus, atheists.
Whether or not IDC is scientifically valid or religiously motivated doesn’t matter to them. They’re fighting for the souls of their children, so anything goes. They’ll vote in pro-IDC board members, circulate petitions to bring IDC into the classrooms, and engage in any number of other activities to save their kids from being “indoctrinated” into the atheistic, materialist “worldview”.
So while the facts are on our side, and yes, that is the main reason our side will eventually prevail—-general public acceptance of teaching the mainstream scientific view of evolution will likely be fueled by theists who can take these facts and present them in such a way that shows one can be an “evolutionist” and still achieve eternal salvation. I believe this will first take place when Christian mainstream scientists open dialogue with religious leaders, who will then present this view to their followers.
Lastly, as far as whether we argue against IDC by saying “It’s not science” vs. “It’s religiously motivated”—it depends on the arena and who you are. When debating IDCists in public or on the internet, do both. When testifying before school boards, if you’re a scientist, really pound the “It’s not science” aspect but think about summarizing by pointing out how religious motivations will lose in court. When filing a court document and making a case before the court, “It’s religiously motivated” is the strongest argument to make, with pepperings of “It’s not science” scattered throughout.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 04:00 PM -
PZ wrote..."What we need is to clearly declare our fellowship with the reasonable theists who believe in reason and science, and at the same time be willing to proudly acknowledge our affiliation with the community of atheists and agnostics."
I want to acknowledge the former part of what you said in this statement but only suggest that your fellowship will be harder to support if in doing the latter you are also prone to taking pot shots at caricature's of what you assume the reasonable theist's god to be like.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 04:03 PM -
The only possible reconciliation is if the theists are allowed to believe that I'm going to burn in hell, while I'm allowed to think that they are bowing to an anthropomorphized version of their own ignorance. Get real; I don't respect theism, so why should I pretend to find good sense in the myths of po-faced worshippers of bearded sky-gods?
I don't really care if some poll shows that most christians don't think their deity is a god-of-the-gaps. I'll listen to their protestations otherwise when they bring up some real evidence that he is something else. -
MAB:
Thanks, but I can't agree with this:
...worrying about avoiding this “elitist” charge is a waste of time unless...
Just because someone doesn't seem elitist to you or me doesn't mean he can't be made to seem elitist, given a certain cultural perspective. The pundits of the right actively employ this language to appeal to their audience's sense of cultural and political disenfranchisement. The use of the word "elitist" conjures up the image of the classical figure of disenfranchisement: the career bureaucrat, lazy and distant from his subjects.
We must constantly remind the public that the biologist is a kind of soldier: he spends his life on the wall of the academy, toiling against age, disease, madness, and the petty discomforts of mortality. He asks for neither thanks nor riches, and for his work he expects only criticism. He does it for the sake of his fellow men, because they have other things to do. He does it because he is suited to it, because the job occupies his mind so that he can't ignore it. He does it ultimately because it helps people. Anyone who has lost a loved one to disease can be made to at least respect this.
<I>Many of the rubes who buy into the creationist script believe that anyone who has an undergraduate degree and doesn’t praise God every other sentence is an elitist. There is nothing that can be done.</I>
I think this is a little premature. When a scientist calls a Christian a rube, tells him he's been duped, then throws his hands up in the air and leaves, that sends a very clear, if misinterpreted, message: "I have given up on you. I don't care about you. I'm smarter than you, I have a better background than you, and I am going to beat you by going over your head." This attitude reinforces the "scientist-as-elitist" meme and engenders all sorts of bad politics. Rather, stick around and listen to what these people have to say, then regretfully disagree (or, try something else - the point is that giving up is not an option).
Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attack the ID advocates. Quite to the contrary, we should go after them, guns blazing, pointing out fraud after fraud after fraud, but also insisting that laymen simply don't have the background to know better (and that there's no shame in it). There's no quicker way to lose your audience than to convince them they've made fools of themselves.
And as to your last point, I agree completely. Right after the "scientist-as-soldier" meme, lay it on thick with the idea that ID advocates are stabbing us in the back. "Hundreds of paleontologists have worked their fingers and brains to the nub, trying to figure out how all these puzzle pieces fit together, and hundreds of biologists have used the evolutionary assumptions in designing therapies and investigating living systems, and you want us to just throw all that work away? Look, maybe there are problems with the theory, but people, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!" That resonates with anyone who has done a bit of hard work in his life, and especially with someone who values hard work as a part of his cultural identity.
Since we're talking about tactics used to reach Christians who don't want to hear it:
Suppose that you're trying to get a Christian to respect you. The first step is to show that he benefits from the effect of your existence, even if your motives are alien to him. The second step is to demonstrate that he places an interpretative filter on scripture (any thinking Christian must do this in order to iron out the paradoxes). Pointing out the element of freedom in interpreting scripture inevitably leads to the next question: if I can choose bits of scripture, why not choose other scriptures?
In this way, the seeds of doubt can be planted in even the most intransigent fundamentalist mind. They sometimes take years to flourish, of course, and they sometimes fail, but no one ever said science was quick or easy.#: Posted by on 01/19 at 06:40 PM -
It seems to me that the central conflict between the scientific and Christian frameworks is that both attempt to explain all observable phenomena. The Catholic Church has been paying boatloads of theologians for centuries to sit and think about how to synch the developing world with the Christian "world-view." When the assumption that Christianity can explain-it-all is depopularized, Christian-heathen relations will relax.
#: Posted by on 01/19 at 06:41 PM
- You forgot to mention the ultimate source of the conflict: science has been successful at explaining the world, while religion has been an abject failure for millennia. It's sour grapes.
-
Second, we should consider mandatory religion class in every public high school in America. Cover Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and everything else still worshipped today. Examine also how religious sentiment influences social policy, and whether this is a good, bad, avoidable, or unavoidable thing.
Actually that's already done here in New York, as part of the Global Studies curriculum.
While I very much agree atheism should be an option, what I think people need to get real about is that proposing it outright is very much a political non-starter and has been as long as there has been a United States. Lincoln left his religious beliefs ambiguous so everyone might impugn him with Christian affiliation, and he did show up at church with his wife, but he was at best a Deist in the classical sense. That may not be how it should be, but it's a fact.
For that matter, the ancient Hellenes didn't respect atheists either, as tolerant of religious practices as they were, far more than we are, I would say. Wasn't that one of the accusations against Socrates?
You forgot to mention the ultimate source of the conflict: science has been successful at explaining the world, while religion has been an abject failure for millennia.
The trouble, PZ, is that most people aren't driven to explain the world. They want emotional contentment. That shouldn't be a surprise. We're hormonal beings, not just rational ones, and I think our limbic region is one of the most important. It's a wonder we can do as much that's rational as we can, truly, and that may be why most folk find math and detailed logic so hard: "I can't do math".
Religion addresses the emotional and, while it does so less for me than it used to, I know many really bright and talented and skeptical people who are deeply committed to certain ritual practices. It's gotta be the emotions. It's like sitting around a campfire in the dead of winter and hearing sagas sung of the great warriors of the past.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 01/19 at 09:23 PM -
"Political non-starter?" There you go, reflexively putting down a minority viewpoint and not even giving it a chance. That's the problem, giving up before we even start, assuming that because people shut their minds at any exposure to atheism that there is no way to overcome their resistance.
You make another assumption: who says you can't get emotional contentment from the secular universe? I find old collections of superstitious lies provide absolutely no emotional satisfaction at all, but digging into the real world, seeing what's actually happening, is far more enjoyable. Atheists aren't sitting around with their brains ticking over like little calculators. We're experiencing joy and exhilaration and contentment -- we're just not getting there by lying to ourselves.
And yeah, that's what they killed Socrates for, atheism and the corruption of the youth of Athens. -
PZ writes
"Atheists aren’t sitting around with their brains ticking over like little calculators. We’re experiencing joy and exhilaration and contentment — we’re just not getting there by lying to ourselves."
So true, PZ, and well worth repeating. The bottom line is that the differences between atheists and theists are actually very tiny compared to our similarities. That's why all the theists continually bring up this garbage about "different worldviews."
Put that in your lesson book, by the way: never use the term "worldview" without putting it in quotes. The "worldview" dialogue is inherently divisive, just like the evangelicals want it to be. Don't go there.
All human beings share the same "worldview". We all live on the same planet. We all need food and air and water. We all seek some sort of pleasure and we all avoid painful accidents. And we use our senses, experience and empirical reasons to achieve those goals and satisfy those needs.
Beliefs in "deities" and "holy books" is just the way that some humans choose to pleasure themselves, and it's easy to understand why they do it. And its easy to understand why they want everyone to think the same way they do.
Why is it easy to understand that, even if one is an atheist? Because we're all human beings.
Importantly, however, the fundamentalists must engage in a hypocracy of sorts where they pretend that they have a different "worldview". That is a big mistake. Pretending that empirical knowledge is good for getting through 99.9% of one's life but that it isn't useful for understanding biological questions is desperately hypocritical. It's willful ignorance. And the smell is obvious.#: Posted by on 01/20 at 03:19 PM -
The theory of evolution is useful. By utilizing it, people are able to breed improved farm animals, graft and hybridize plants, and make other advances in agriculture and horticulture. Intelligent Design certainly could explain how animals develop distinct breeds or even distinct species by an arbitrary exercise of divine will, but it cannot be used by people to breed improved farm animals, hybridize plants, or for any other purposes. God, after all, is not beholden to man's desire. So, while Intelligent Design is certainly internally consistent, it doesn't lend itself to any scientific understanding of the world, or to an engineered approach to changing it.
When the rubber meets the road, the test of science is "can it be used to produce something?" This is the engineering test.
Can you engineer something with God, the force behind Intelligent Design? I don't think you can. I don't see why most people would want to. Religious people would think of it as blasphemous; atheists would think of it as futile; people who believe in witchcraft and magical spells would think it possible, but I don't think Cobb County is full of wiccans and practicing sorcerors.
Summing up, here's my question for ID proponents.
Q: Why would you want to change your religion into a science? Is that a satisfying prospect? -
PZ, it seems to me that we are talking past one another. Here's why I think it matters...as long as your rhetoric conflates thinking scientifically (e.g. evolutionary theory) with atheism (an association with no logical basis, imo, other than a trivial consistency), you will continue to do no more than to confirm the falacious assumption that the two are necessarily linked in the minds of the theistically motivated anti-science (e.g. IDCist) public. When you do that, any scientific argument you offer is heard as so much anti-theistic propaganda.
An alternative, it seems to me, would be to stand together with scientists without regard to or diparagement of their theistic posture in support of the science. If you feel motivated to spread the good word about atheism, take care to do it in venue's that have nothing to do with science since science has exactly zero to say (by methodological necessity) about the objects of theistic belief or faith. Unappologetically identifying youself as an atheist is one thing, but conflating an anti-theistic posture with scientific thinking is another
Having said that, it is certainly true that scientists who are also theists need to publically speak out against ant-science threats like IDCism while unappologetically identifying themselves as theists. The anti-science theists need to be confronted with the fact of their existence. They need to speak out boldly in their respective religious cicles and in contexts like school board hearings, etc. It has to be grass roots and in the face of the theistic public on their own turf. People like Ken Miller can't do it alone from the top; it has to be bottom up.
As a concluding question, why would you want to conflate an anti-theistic posture with the work you do as a scientist? Given the public and political process in which the struggle takes place, doing so seems only likely to be counter productive.#: Posted by on 01/21 at 10:16 AM -
I've looked over this post and this comment thread, and I see nowhere where I have conflated science with atheism. Scientists are perfectly capable of being good Christians or Moslems or whatever...but they also keep their religion distinct from their science. Science doesn't address god in one way or another. I really don't go into the lab, focus the microscope, and say, "Aha! Another data point for godlessness!" Scientists who are Christian likewise can't claim their research vindicates Jesus.
What I am saying here is that we secular people need to take more pride in our position and speak out more, not that we need to exclude Christians from science. What is dismaying is the unconscious bigotry of Christians, though, that you yourself are expressing. It's fine for the Ken Millers of the world to act as role models in science (and tell me, do you regard Miller's public statements of faith to be as offensive as mentioning atheism? He seems to do it in a scientific venue, too), and you want more activist Christians to speak up...but atheists? Lord, keep 'em quiet. Atheist role models and atheist activists would be "counter productive". Scientists should be encouraged to say, "I believe in Jesus," but the ones who say "I don't believe in any gods" just taint the whole field.
Maybe that's a good reason for more scientists to stand up and speak out as atheists, as a corrective to the soft bigotry of so many Christians.
Read my last paragraph in the article again. If there's any counter-productive bias here, it's against atheists, and you're doing it yourself. -
I didn't say you shouldn't unappologetically identify yourself as an atheist. To answer your challenge, I already called you on your unsupportable claim that religion and science are "really not" compatible. Look, it doesn't matter if some forms are not compatible nor if you personally find compatible forms unsatisfying. Your statement fuels the religiously motivated mistrust of science, and it does so in spite of the fact that it is empirically false as you seem to acknowledge in your last reply to me. I'm left to wonder how to take your last paragraph seriously in light of your insistence on the incompatibility claim. I certainly don't claim that science is incompatible with atheism.
#: Posted by on 01/21 at 11:28 AM
-
Oh, I see your problem, and it's a common one: the individual who identifies with his religion that he sees any criticism of it as an attack on the religious.
Science and religion are incompatible. You don't get to bring your religion into the lab, no Jesus in the test tube. The bible isn't part of the scientific literature. Miracles and divine intervention aren't scientific protocols. If you insist otherwise, you are fueling my scientifically motivated mistrust of religion.
That is not the same as saying Christians can't do science. I know some good scientists who are Christian. They do science in the lab. Would you suggest that their work isn't up to par unless they include a little mysticism? -
PZ, in a manner, we are (at least I am trying) to say exactly the same thing as you did in #53. What you really seem to be saying it is impossible to to be doing science if one is bringing one's religious beliefs to bear on their conduct of science and interpretation of data. Yes, in this narrow sense, your statement is correct. There is no place in the scientific method for reference to or interpretation based on religious belief. To do so is precisely what the IDCists seem to want to do and it is precisely for this reason that I wholeheartedly agree that so-called "ID theory" is and cannot be science.
But your "really aren't" compatible statement in response to Newman reads much more generally and will, I submit, be read by the anti-science public to mean that it is not possible to do science and be a theist, when, as you have just stated, that is not what you meant.#: Posted by on 01/21 at 01:04 PM -
Shaggy, the "anti-science public," whoever they are, are probably mostly unreachable anyway. I mean if we're talking about those specific people who are actually ANTI-science, they're already off in some mental neverland.
I agree we should finesse our way around their opposition, if that's what you mean, so that we can reach the people who are actually reachable, but ... there's also a point where we shouldn't worry TOO MUCH about what goes on in their non-rational little heads.
The truth is, science and religion ARE incompatible. You can't DO science by religion. At all. Ever. Anywhere.
Maybe religion and science can co-exist in the same mind, but that's more a statement about the flexibility and/or fallibility of the human mind than anything else. -
Hank Fox wrote...
"The truth is, science and religion ARE incompatible. You can’t DO science by religion. At all. Ever. Anywhere.
Maybe religion and science can co-exist in the same mind, but that’s more a statement about the flexibility and/or fallibility of the human mind than anything else."
As with PZ's statement, your first statement is true only in the narrow sense that I just acknowledged to PZ. But when you rhetorically shout "At all. Ever. Anywhere." and then refer to the fallibility of the mind of a scientist who is a theist who is also perfectly capable of intellectually separating their practice of science from their religious beliefs, it reads in the same generally problematic way. At least that's the way it reads to me and all I meant to do was point out a perspective. You, PZ, and I can, of course, all disagree on matters of rhetorical style and still agree on the substance of what is and isn't science.#: Posted by on 01/21 at 02:29 PM
