New Watenho
19-08-2005, 18:23
[Originally tried to use this to calm down a flamewar in the ID thread, before realising it was futile, so this'd do best on its own]
PEOPLE!
Do not argue about which one [Evolutionism/ID] has more scientific merit. The same evidence can, and regularly is, used to support both, with varying degrees of strength, and the argument will never be solved that way.
The problem is the overwhelming political power held by adherents to a "scientific" theory, who would rather see it apply to "science" than a different theory. Do you really think if it had no religious backing it would be taken so seriously? For fuck's sake, people! Nobody today argues whether oxygen is gained or phlogiston lost when something burns! Nobody today argues whether the planets move in 100+ series of epicycles round the Earth or in ellipses round the sun!
So why hasn't one of these theories come out on top? Politics. Nowhere in the Western world (and the worldwide scientific community) except America is "Intelligent Design" considered a serious contender with evolutionism, and do you know why? Because evolutionism is seen by the proponents of "ID" and Creationism, which are fundamentally linked - don't start, I'll get back to that later - to be doing away with the need for God. It doesn't. Allow me to explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Creationism
In the beginning there was the idea, and the idea was Creationism. Signed, sealed, delivered in the unquestioned Word of God, Creationism wasn't even an -ism back then; it was just the truth. It essentially stated that there was no naturalistic explanation for the existence of plants, animals and at the end of the day, man, and nor did there need to be. The explanation was super-natural, the result of a unique, irreproducible event. It portrayed man as special and above all the other animals, which came in useful elsewhere in the paradigm to which it belonged.
2: Genetics
A seemingly unrelated theorem was to come in vitally important later in the debate. Theories of inheritance, by natural philosophers such as Mendel, proved that naturalistic rules were at work within biological communities. The previous Creationist assumption that like could only produce like was called into question, though not in any serious way, by the systematic study of micro-changes in plant and animal species.
3: Darwinism
Though Darwin had trouble relating his own theory to genetics, it is obvious how the two interact. Darwinism does directly contradict literal interpretations of the Creationist paradigm-statement, the Bible, and when it first appeared was reacted against violently by the clergy. The people, however, flocked away from God in droves - and the dubious result of the debate between T H Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce only muddied the waters of the debate. The first instance of institutionalised religion assuming Darwinism had no place for God was unfolding.
4: Middle America
America is a religious country, albeit not on the books. Its money, which it worships, carries on it a reminder of the only thing it regards higher: God. It is also a country distrusting of intellectualism, regarding determination, tenacity, skill and courage as greater aims than pure knowledge or understanding. Its God, therefore, is not one who needs to work through naturalistic processes; Gods being things to aspire to, this God can and does do what It wants, and the American people are always at Its mercy.
Its politicians are religious too - in a democracy, one must follow the nation's lead - and distrust things which seem to go against God, because, of course, this God which can do what It wants might not like America anymore if America doesn't like It.
Creationism doesn't stand up to modern science, which has proved (as much as any scientific theory logically can) that some of its most fundamental assertions are wrong. However, the alternative seems to leech away support for God - which cannot be allowed. A hybrid must be found.
5: "Intelligent Design"
Intelligent Design should be Evolution-started-by-God, thus:
A: Evolutionism makes no assertions positive or negative about the nature or existence of God.
B: God exists (for reasons x, y, z - not for this discussion).
C: God is responsible for the way the Universe is (offshoots of x, y, z), having written the rules upon which it runs.
D: Evolution is a naturalistic process, abiding by predictable, determinstic rules.
E: Evolution's rules were written by God.
F: Being perfect, God had no need to intervene with the evolutionary process, as nothing between the creation of life and the existence of man had free will, so nothing until man's existence could possibly have gone wrong.
G: Therefore, God is responsible for man's existence via an evolutionary process in which It did not, after setting the Universe in motion, intervene.
IMPORTANT: THE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM ITSELF IS A COMPONENT OF THIS INTELLIGENT DESIGN PARADIGM IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN =/= CREATIONISM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real reason for the rejection of evolutionism in the religious American heartland is not the incredibly powerful main theory. The reason for the rejection of evolutionism is that it eradicates the need for God to explain man's existence, and that it is positively against man being special for purely ontological reasons. We are offended to believe we are of the same stock as apes, chimpanzees and iguanas - which is a positive assertion of evolutionism - but this would be as nothing were it not for its independence of God. Evolution is just a mechanism, which can function with or without a God to have started it (talk about the beginning of the Universe is moot here, as evolution makes no assertions about that), and that very fact is what so many find so offensive. That if you say you have no need for God, it seems to mean "Fuck you, God."
This is not true. When a child moves away from home at the age of 18, 19, 20, he does not say "Fuck off parents, I don't need you any more, and I'm not grateful to you for bringing me up." Therefore, resistance to evolution is fundamentally flawed, for the only alternative attempt at a scientific theorem is Creationism.
Intelligent Design must be one of two things.
If it tries to defeat evolutionism by having God play a part in the evolutionary process other than by setting the Universe in motion, it is non-naturalistic, and therefore both functionally isometric and as non-scientific as Creationism.
Turn to page 34, with trepidation.
If it accepts evolutionism and its own status as a philosophical theorem, it is entirely free from opposition from the theory of evolution itself, but at the same time must not claim to be a scientific but a philosophical theorem.
Turn to page 98, and have a cookie.
PEOPLE!
Do not argue about which one [Evolutionism/ID] has more scientific merit. The same evidence can, and regularly is, used to support both, with varying degrees of strength, and the argument will never be solved that way.
The problem is the overwhelming political power held by adherents to a "scientific" theory, who would rather see it apply to "science" than a different theory. Do you really think if it had no religious backing it would be taken so seriously? For fuck's sake, people! Nobody today argues whether oxygen is gained or phlogiston lost when something burns! Nobody today argues whether the planets move in 100+ series of epicycles round the Earth or in ellipses round the sun!
So why hasn't one of these theories come out on top? Politics. Nowhere in the Western world (and the worldwide scientific community) except America is "Intelligent Design" considered a serious contender with evolutionism, and do you know why? Because evolutionism is seen by the proponents of "ID" and Creationism, which are fundamentally linked - don't start, I'll get back to that later - to be doing away with the need for God. It doesn't. Allow me to explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Creationism
In the beginning there was the idea, and the idea was Creationism. Signed, sealed, delivered in the unquestioned Word of God, Creationism wasn't even an -ism back then; it was just the truth. It essentially stated that there was no naturalistic explanation for the existence of plants, animals and at the end of the day, man, and nor did there need to be. The explanation was super-natural, the result of a unique, irreproducible event. It portrayed man as special and above all the other animals, which came in useful elsewhere in the paradigm to which it belonged.
2: Genetics
A seemingly unrelated theorem was to come in vitally important later in the debate. Theories of inheritance, by natural philosophers such as Mendel, proved that naturalistic rules were at work within biological communities. The previous Creationist assumption that like could only produce like was called into question, though not in any serious way, by the systematic study of micro-changes in plant and animal species.
3: Darwinism
Though Darwin had trouble relating his own theory to genetics, it is obvious how the two interact. Darwinism does directly contradict literal interpretations of the Creationist paradigm-statement, the Bible, and when it first appeared was reacted against violently by the clergy. The people, however, flocked away from God in droves - and the dubious result of the debate between T H Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce only muddied the waters of the debate. The first instance of institutionalised religion assuming Darwinism had no place for God was unfolding.
4: Middle America
America is a religious country, albeit not on the books. Its money, which it worships, carries on it a reminder of the only thing it regards higher: God. It is also a country distrusting of intellectualism, regarding determination, tenacity, skill and courage as greater aims than pure knowledge or understanding. Its God, therefore, is not one who needs to work through naturalistic processes; Gods being things to aspire to, this God can and does do what It wants, and the American people are always at Its mercy.
Its politicians are religious too - in a democracy, one must follow the nation's lead - and distrust things which seem to go against God, because, of course, this God which can do what It wants might not like America anymore if America doesn't like It.
Creationism doesn't stand up to modern science, which has proved (as much as any scientific theory logically can) that some of its most fundamental assertions are wrong. However, the alternative seems to leech away support for God - which cannot be allowed. A hybrid must be found.
5: "Intelligent Design"
Intelligent Design should be Evolution-started-by-God, thus:
A: Evolutionism makes no assertions positive or negative about the nature or existence of God.
B: God exists (for reasons x, y, z - not for this discussion).
C: God is responsible for the way the Universe is (offshoots of x, y, z), having written the rules upon which it runs.
D: Evolution is a naturalistic process, abiding by predictable, determinstic rules.
E: Evolution's rules were written by God.
F: Being perfect, God had no need to intervene with the evolutionary process, as nothing between the creation of life and the existence of man had free will, so nothing until man's existence could possibly have gone wrong.
G: Therefore, God is responsible for man's existence via an evolutionary process in which It did not, after setting the Universe in motion, intervene.
IMPORTANT: THE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM ITSELF IS A COMPONENT OF THIS INTELLIGENT DESIGN PARADIGM IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN =/= CREATIONISM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real reason for the rejection of evolutionism in the religious American heartland is not the incredibly powerful main theory. The reason for the rejection of evolutionism is that it eradicates the need for God to explain man's existence, and that it is positively against man being special for purely ontological reasons. We are offended to believe we are of the same stock as apes, chimpanzees and iguanas - which is a positive assertion of evolutionism - but this would be as nothing were it not for its independence of God. Evolution is just a mechanism, which can function with or without a God to have started it (talk about the beginning of the Universe is moot here, as evolution makes no assertions about that), and that very fact is what so many find so offensive. That if you say you have no need for God, it seems to mean "Fuck you, God."
This is not true. When a child moves away from home at the age of 18, 19, 20, he does not say "Fuck off parents, I don't need you any more, and I'm not grateful to you for bringing me up." Therefore, resistance to evolution is fundamentally flawed, for the only alternative attempt at a scientific theorem is Creationism.
Intelligent Design must be one of two things.
If it tries to defeat evolutionism by having God play a part in the evolutionary process other than by setting the Universe in motion, it is non-naturalistic, and therefore both functionally isometric and as non-scientific as Creationism.
Turn to page 34, with trepidation.
If it accepts evolutionism and its own status as a philosophical theorem, it is entirely free from opposition from the theory of evolution itself, but at the same time must not claim to be a scientific but a philosophical theorem.
Turn to page 98, and have a cookie.