[IP] more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe in Genesis!
Begin forwarded message:
From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 14, 2005 11:51:08 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ip Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe
in Genesis!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 6, 2005 1:37:34 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jhuggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe
in Genesis!
I thought somebody else would have said what I'm going to say below,
but apparently nobody did, so here it is.
on Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:39:25AM -0400, David Farber forwarded:
Subject: Re: more on Science is for Pansies - REAL Men believe in
Genesis!
From: "Kobrin, Steve" <kobrins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
More importantly, where have we failed as educators?
When we generalize and ridicule those who disagree with us instead of
seeking to educate and inform. Forgive me, but I'm going to pick on
something you said a little later in your message:
Most of these people have had science in high school or college.
However, if someone tells them that it is all nonsense and the
world was created 5000 years ago, they believe it. One has to
wonder about the quality of science education in this country.
This lumps all the "intelligent design" and "literal creationists"
into the same boat. There are *plenty* of people who believe in a
Creator
who also believe that the world is millions of years old. The two
beliefs are compatible. But you wouldn't know that from the way this
so-called "debate" is actually conducted in the public sphere.
All we
hear about are the extremes.
That's standard practice when constructing a debate - isolate the most
dramatic examples of opposing arguments and then zero in on them. It's
rather pointless to debunk potentially flawed compromise positions.
I think you missed the point. Too many people in this "debate"
implicitly
and often explicitly tar all religious people or at least all Christians
as promoters of ID or creationists. The result of such scattershot
debate
is that it can turn more people against those who shoot blindly. In
other
words, it plays into the hands of the ID promoters.
In this case, the folks promoting "intelligent design" attempt to find
authoritative statements of inquiry into "holes" in "evolutionary
theory" as preachers try to find illustrative passages from the Bible
to support their sermons. Not as debate, not as a pursuit of logical
conclusions or demonstrable facts and processes, but as an emotional
appeal to the heart.
Yes. And they often provoke emotional reactions against all Christians,
which then promotes reactions in turn, which all plays into the hands
of those promoters of ID.
Evolution, and the supposed implication that behind it all lies
nothing,
no God nor loving heavenly Savior, frightens the wits out of some
people
- and so rather than trying to embrace the idea that the universe is
even more wondrous than their religious leaders and prophets could
have
ever imagined, they run like scared rabbits into the comforting
beliefs
of childhood.
Could be.
And it could also be that they (and you) don't understand what their
prophets were really trying to get at, which may not have anything
to do with how old the universe is.
It's not a debate - it's a querolous mob looking for comfort. And no
amount of pretending that "intelligent design" is anything else will
bring forth a "debate". You cannot reason with those to whom reason
is a
stranger, or with those driven by fear and ignorance.
You can, however, aim blindly and offend many people who weren't
offending
you, and thus make things worse.
You can only, at
best, make a contrasting emotional appeal, one which is likely to fail
due to the underlying fact of the matter, which is that many people
hold
ludicrous beliefs; those beliefs are not remotely systematized nor
falsifiable, and ultimately in any honest person must be shed as the
comforts of a younger and more ignorant child, species, culture, or
community.
How about pointing out that Jesus never said anything about how long
ago the earth was created, and that what he did emphasize as important
had nothing to do with that? I.e., appeal to what they claim they do
believe.
For that matter, there's Job 38:
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measures, if you know?
Or who stretched the line on it?
Whereupon were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
It goes on for many more examples,
in case it wasn't clear that any one
example is not the point.
I've spent a long time trying to argue with people and wasted many
long
hours before realizing that I approached many of those arguments
with an
implicit assumption about the rules of the game, all too often not
shared. This assumption? That both parties understood that the
processes
and techniques may be manifold, but that the final goal was to
obtain a
better understanding, or a belief worth holding, even if that meant
shedding or reexamining other, perhaps cherished, sets of beliefs,
sadly
founded on nonsense.
This is a good example of a paragraph that could easily be read as
saying
that all religion is founded on nonsense. You may believe that, but
it's
rather beside the point, and when brought into such a discussion
about ID
only serves to exacerbate it.
Science's attempt to survive (later mirrored by theology's attempt
to do
the same) by splitting off questions of fact from questions of
faith is
coming back around on us now, where education has actually made it
possible for the average person to be exposed to questions and
proposals
that were once the realm of the natural philosopher and gentleman
scholar and don.
Naturally, the dishonesty of science's (and theology's!) attempt to
sweep under the rug the fundamental relatedness of the basic questions
asked, and often answered, by both, is obvious to anyone who thinks
about it for very long. Unfortunately, for someone to whom the
theological answers are more familiar, more deeply ingrained, the
instinct is to defend the old, rather than examine either or welcome
the new.
Ah, an argument consisting of it's "obvious". Very rational.
Maybe there are more things in the universe than are dreamed of
in your philosophy.
And maybe that's exactly the problem with the ID people, too.
While perhaps the efficacy of "love thy neighbor" may be elucidated
via evolutionary theory or by modern psychological research, the
original
statement was a religious statement, not a scientific one. Indeed there
may be much overlap in the concerns of religion and science, but there
are many things in religion that aren't motivated by science and aren't
contradicted by it, either.
I don't know if "evolutionary theory" is true, or sound. It seems
to me
to make much more sense than the Genesis story. As with all science,
future discoveries may require its extension or modification or
that it
be discarded like Newton's physics or Scholastic mathematics or
Aristotelian dentistry. But I do know that "intelligent design" is
Creationism drawn not from the wells of honest inquiry but from the
fear
of modernity and ignorance of logic and language and precedes not
from a
fact to belief in a Creator, but from a belief in a Creator to a
desire
to see science dethroned.
I would tend to agree with you.
As an old friend of mine used to say: "It's too bad ignorance isn't
painful". We might be encouraged to educate ourselves instead of
remaining in bliss.
So, tell me, what's the difference in the religion of St. John of the
Cross
and that of Pat Robertson?
I.e., how many people who want to argue with religious people have
bothered
to educate themselves about religion?
If, as educators, you really believe that intelligent design is bunk,
then use the tools of education to fight that battle. Ignorance is
curable. But dismissing your opponents as uneducatable and
unlearned by
making dismissive remarks about the quality of their teachers
serves no
useful purpose. Show the folly in your opponents' arguments. But
then be prepared to have your arguments examined with the same
scrutiny.
Come ... let us reason together ...
You've missed the point. Yes, ignorance is curable, if the patient
will
submit to the appropriate regimen.
Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated countless times throughout
history, long past and recent, religious beliefs have had a dreadful
effect on the ability of those who hold them to "reason together".
Here, again, you've fired a scattershot blast against all religion,
when the problem is ID and creationism.
Part of this effect is due to the lack of basic understanding or
acceptance of logic, the scientific method, and so on. The usual "and
then a miracle happened..." line.
Many religious people have no difficulties with science or logic.
For that matter, many scientists have had no difficulty with religion.
"Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you establish its dominion over the earth?"
One can well argue the answer to that is "Isaac Newton"
and then it would be useful to remember that one of his
main motivations was to understand how his God works.
Part is due to the lack of applicability of the scientific method and
the principle of falsifiability to esoteric beliefs in such as a
Creator
who stands outside space and time, or a Messiah who can bend
physics to
his will, or for that matter a Prophet who listens to angel and in the
process is delivered the Qur'an.
And I thought esoteric meant "known only to a chosen few."
Perhaps there was an esoteric meaning to your paragraph
beyond citing a few beliefs very well known to many people.
A brief study of the history of religion would reveal that
many Jews and Christians and Moslems have had no difficulty
with science, and that there are many ways to interpret the
items you cite other than in a literal manner.
I don't know for sure what the other poster's point was,
but my point, once again, is that scattershot attacks against
religion don't really help in opposing ID or creationism.
Rather the opposite: they provoke further reactions from
parties who weren't even promoting ID or creationism,
thus playing into the hands of the actual promoters.
Saying there's no difference in the concerns of science and religion
probably won't help, either, because that's easily seen as an
argument that both should be taught in the same class.
Pointing out that people who promote ID or creationism
aren't really following their own religions might help.
...
Steve
-jsq
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/