![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annissamazingIn November 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board voted to require science teachers to read the following statement:
When the resolution passed, the three dissenting members of the school board resigned in protest. Because the district's science teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement for each ninth grade biology class. The school board's decision to require this statement be read in the district's science classes led to a lawsuit filed by eleven parents of students in the school district. Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican who had been appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in science class in public schools because intelligent design is a religious idea and violated the separation of church and state. This was the correct decision and one that should continue to be upheld.
But what is intelligent design and why shouldn't it be taught in biology as a legitimate alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution? According to the Discovery Institute, a research organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington, intelligent design is a theory that states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." The idea of intelligent design actually goes back to as early as the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas said, "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" (Kitzmiller 24). This syllogism remains the basis for intelligent design.
The debate surrounding intelligent design is whether it is a religious belief or a scientific theory. Proponents of intelligent design state emphatically that it is not the same as creationism, nor is the theory religious, because intelligent design does not depend on biblical references or timelines and does not state who or what the intelligent designer is. However, the idea that intelligent design is not a religious idea is laughable. Thomas Aquinas was quite clear that the designer in his syllogism was God, and every proponent of intelligent design who spoke at the Kitzmiller trial admitted that they personally believe that the designer is the Christian God. Even the textbook, Of Pandas and People, is clearly religious despite its lack of any mention of the Bible or God.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a Christian non-profit organization, financed the production of Pandas, the most widely known and used textbook supporting intelligent design. In 1981, the FTE put out an ad seeking authors to write a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" (Forrest). Early drafts of Pandas were written in 1983 under the title Creation Biology and included creationist language. After the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that creation could not be taught in schools, the creationist language in the drafts of the book, which had been retitled Biology and Creation, then Biology and Origin, had been changed. The creationist language had been replaced with intelligent design terms. The changes had been hastily and poorly done. Where the writers had tried to replace the word "creationists" with "design proponents," the mashup "cdesign proponentsists" appears (Forrest). This was the most obvious evidence that intelligent design was a religious idea hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-science, but other evidence is easy to uncover.
William Buckingham, the chair of Dover's curriculum committee, told a Fox-TV affiliate, "It's okay to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else such as creationism" (qtd. in Shermer 101). Buckingham and his church raised $850 to purchase copies of Pandas for the school. Buckingham was quoted in a local newspaper as saying, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (qtd. in Shermer 104).
In spite of its clearly religious agenda, proponents of intelligent design insist that t is a legitimate scientific theory. Intelligent design depends on the idea of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a system is so complex that it could only have been designed. According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), intelligent design follows the scientific method. Their website states:
However, irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. It assumes that there are only two possibilities to explain how life exists today: evolution or intelligent design. It is also a "bait-and-switch" fallacy. Every time a system that was thought to be irreducibly complex is reduced to simpler systems, the standard of irreducible complexity changes to the simpler standard (Shermer 67). Proponents of intelligent design use scientific-sounding language in order to make it sound like legitimate science. Scientific theories stand on their own merits. If the evidence cannot support a theory, the theory is disregarded. "There are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution" (Shermer xx).
Meanwhile, proponents of intelligent design claim that evolution is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested. This is blatantly false, as the theory of evolution is constantly tested by many scientists, but breakthroughs are routinely ignored or refuted by creationists. For example, James Bardwell, a biologist from the University of Michigan, disabled a strain of E. coli, making it unable to move. When the bacterium's food supply ran out, it had to either restore its ability to move or starve to death. One of the mutant bacteria was able to restore motor function and replicate. Those who support intelligent design would argue that the researcher was acting as the designer in this case, when it would be more accurate to describe him as the force of natural selection (Shermer 76-77). The bacteria that was able to evolve was the strain that got to reproduce.
Creationists also point to a lack of fossil evidence as proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. According to Michael Shermer, we have a wealth of fossil evidence at our disposal.
Many of the arguments held by proponents of intelligent design against evolution are based on misinformation or ignorance. One argument that is often quoted asks, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This arises from a misunderstanding of evolution which does not state that man evolved from monkeys, but that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
A sticking point with proponents of intelligent design seems to be the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory." In 2004, the state of Georgia required all public schools to put a sticker on their science textbooks which read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. 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." Both this statement and the statement written by the Dover Area School Board makes this distinction between fact and theory. This is deliberately misleading. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. It is a generalization, based on observation, and testing, that explains a phenomenon. Proponents of intelligent design seem to take issue only with the theory of evolution. They accept gladly many other scientific theories such as "heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift and plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, the genetic basis of heredity, and many others" (Shermer 129). In the case of evolution, scientists have taken "independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and population genetics, and many other sciences [to] point to the conclusion that life evolved" (Shermer 13). The theory of evolution uses established facts to explain how life exists the way it does today.
Intelligent design is a lazy theory that scientists do not find helpful when studying biological systems. Even scientists who practice Christianity prefer to use the scientific method over intelligent design. Lee Ann Chaney, a professor at Whitworth College, says,
Professor Chaney is hardly the only scientist of the Christian faith who does not discount Darwin's theory of evolution. Creationists fear that understanding Darwin's theory will undermine people's faith in God. This fear is based on the faulty belief that evolution implies that there is no god, but this fear is unfounded. According to Shermer, "A 1996 survey found that 39 percent of American scientists profess belief in God, and a 1997 poll found that 99 percent of American scientists accept the theory of evolution" (Shermer 126). Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution happened and that the theory was not a threat to religion (Shermer 128).
In reality, the creationism/intelligent design debate isn't about science; it's about culture. Phillip Johnson, a retired UC Berkley law professor, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and advocate for intelligent design, said, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science... It's about religion and philosophy" (qtd. from Shermer 109). The Discover Institute labels itself secular, but its internal documents are very clear on who they believe the designer to be and what the ultimate agenda of the organization is. The "Wedge Document" states
The claim that the Discovery Institute is secular is disingenuous at best.
The Discovery Institute has devised a strategy to get intelligent design taught in classrooms throughout the country. The so-called "Wedge Strategy" culminates in possible legal action "in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula" (Wedge 15). The goal of the people who support the teaching of intelligent design in biology class seems to be establishing the idea of a divine creator as an unquestionable, proven fact. This may be more harmful than helpful in turning people towards a religious lifestyle. For example, the design of the human eye wouldn't under any other circumstances be called "intelligent." "It is built upside down and backwards... for optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Shermer 17). Intelligent design reduces God to a watchmaker, using only what He has on hand to create existence. In order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, He needs to exist outside the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, the scientific community, because intelligent design is useless to them, essentially ignores it (Shermer xviii).
When forcing public schools to adopt intelligent design in biology class failed, the Discovery Institute fell back on the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. This was the idea that science teachers could present both intelligent design and evolution in class and teach why there was a debate over the teaching of both. However, this was also struck down because "Teach the Controversy" is also not science.
Intelligent design proponents may have been better served trying to get creationism taught in other classes such as debate, philosophy, or comparative religion. This would introduce their idea to a larger audience, in the proper forum, without having to resort to "Teach the Controversy" in science class. For anyone interested in a theological viewpoint of how life exists, it's not a far leap to assume that life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being. By pushing the idea of intelligent design as science, proponents of intelligent design hurt science and hurt religion.
Works Cited:
"FAQ: Does intelligent Design Theory Implement the Scientific Method?" Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Web. Mar. 27, 2011
Forrest, Barbara. "My Role in Kitzmiller vs. Dover." National Center for Science Education. Jan. - Apr. 2006. Web. Mar. 26, 2011
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. PAMD. 139. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2005. Web. Apr. 1, 2011
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York. Henry Holt. 2006. Print.
"The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" The Discovery Institute. Web. Apr. 3, 2011.
"What is Intelligent Design?" The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Web. Mar. 26, 2011.
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments. (Kitzmiller 1-2)
When the resolution passed, the three dissenting members of the school board resigned in protest. Because the district's science teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement for each ninth grade biology class. The school board's decision to require this statement be read in the district's science classes led to a lawsuit filed by eleven parents of students in the school district. Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican who had been appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in science class in public schools because intelligent design is a religious idea and violated the separation of church and state. This was the correct decision and one that should continue to be upheld.
But what is intelligent design and why shouldn't it be taught in biology as a legitimate alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution? According to the Discovery Institute, a research organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington, intelligent design is a theory that states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." The idea of intelligent design actually goes back to as early as the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas said, "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" (Kitzmiller 24). This syllogism remains the basis for intelligent design.
The debate surrounding intelligent design is whether it is a religious belief or a scientific theory. Proponents of intelligent design state emphatically that it is not the same as creationism, nor is the theory religious, because intelligent design does not depend on biblical references or timelines and does not state who or what the intelligent designer is. However, the idea that intelligent design is not a religious idea is laughable. Thomas Aquinas was quite clear that the designer in his syllogism was God, and every proponent of intelligent design who spoke at the Kitzmiller trial admitted that they personally believe that the designer is the Christian God. Even the textbook, Of Pandas and People, is clearly religious despite its lack of any mention of the Bible or God.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a Christian non-profit organization, financed the production of Pandas, the most widely known and used textbook supporting intelligent design. In 1981, the FTE put out an ad seeking authors to write a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" (Forrest). Early drafts of Pandas were written in 1983 under the title Creation Biology and included creationist language. After the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that creation could not be taught in schools, the creationist language in the drafts of the book, which had been retitled Biology and Creation, then Biology and Origin, had been changed. The creationist language had been replaced with intelligent design terms. The changes had been hastily and poorly done. Where the writers had tried to replace the word "creationists" with "design proponents," the mashup "cdesign proponentsists" appears (Forrest). This was the most obvious evidence that intelligent design was a religious idea hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-science, but other evidence is easy to uncover.
William Buckingham, the chair of Dover's curriculum committee, told a Fox-TV affiliate, "It's okay to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else such as creationism" (qtd. in Shermer 101). Buckingham and his church raised $850 to purchase copies of Pandas for the school. Buckingham was quoted in a local newspaper as saying, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (qtd. in Shermer 104).
In spite of its clearly religious agenda, proponents of intelligent design insist that t is a legitimate scientific theory. Intelligent design depends on the idea of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a system is so complex that it could only have been designed. According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), intelligent design follows the scientific method. Their website states:
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
However, irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. It assumes that there are only two possibilities to explain how life exists today: evolution or intelligent design. It is also a "bait-and-switch" fallacy. Every time a system that was thought to be irreducibly complex is reduced to simpler systems, the standard of irreducible complexity changes to the simpler standard (Shermer 67). Proponents of intelligent design use scientific-sounding language in order to make it sound like legitimate science. Scientific theories stand on their own merits. If the evidence cannot support a theory, the theory is disregarded. "There are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution" (Shermer xx).
Meanwhile, proponents of intelligent design claim that evolution is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested. This is blatantly false, as the theory of evolution is constantly tested by many scientists, but breakthroughs are routinely ignored or refuted by creationists. For example, James Bardwell, a biologist from the University of Michigan, disabled a strain of E. coli, making it unable to move. When the bacterium's food supply ran out, it had to either restore its ability to move or starve to death. One of the mutant bacteria was able to restore motor function and replicate. Those who support intelligent design would argue that the researcher was acting as the designer in this case, when it would be more accurate to describe him as the force of natural selection (Shermer 76-77). The bacteria that was able to evolve was the strain that got to reproduce.
Creationists also point to a lack of fossil evidence as proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. According to Michael Shermer, we have a wealth of fossil evidence at our disposal.
But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (Shermer 13)
Many of the arguments held by proponents of intelligent design against evolution are based on misinformation or ignorance. One argument that is often quoted asks, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This arises from a misunderstanding of evolution which does not state that man evolved from monkeys, but that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
A sticking point with proponents of intelligent design seems to be the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory." In 2004, the state of Georgia required all public schools to put a sticker on their science textbooks which read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. 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." Both this statement and the statement written by the Dover Area School Board makes this distinction between fact and theory. This is deliberately misleading. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. It is a generalization, based on observation, and testing, that explains a phenomenon. Proponents of intelligent design seem to take issue only with the theory of evolution. They accept gladly many other scientific theories such as "heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift and plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, the genetic basis of heredity, and many others" (Shermer 129). In the case of evolution, scientists have taken "independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and population genetics, and many other sciences [to] point to the conclusion that life evolved" (Shermer 13). The theory of evolution uses established facts to explain how life exists the way it does today.
Intelligent design is a lazy theory that scientists do not find helpful when studying biological systems. Even scientists who practice Christianity prefer to use the scientific method over intelligent design. Lee Ann Chaney, a professor at Whitworth College, says,
As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable - there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective. (qtd. from Shermer 111)
Professor Chaney is hardly the only scientist of the Christian faith who does not discount Darwin's theory of evolution. Creationists fear that understanding Darwin's theory will undermine people's faith in God. This fear is based on the faulty belief that evolution implies that there is no god, but this fear is unfounded. According to Shermer, "A 1996 survey found that 39 percent of American scientists profess belief in God, and a 1997 poll found that 99 percent of American scientists accept the theory of evolution" (Shermer 126). Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution happened and that the theory was not a threat to religion (Shermer 128).
In reality, the creationism/intelligent design debate isn't about science; it's about culture. Phillip Johnson, a retired UC Berkley law professor, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and advocate for intelligent design, said, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science... It's about religion and philosophy" (qtd. from Shermer 109). The Discover Institute labels itself secular, but its internal documents are very clear on who they believe the designer to be and what the ultimate agenda of the organization is. The "Wedge Document" states
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built... Thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art... Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [now named the Center for Science and Culture] seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. (Wedge 12-13)
The claim that the Discovery Institute is secular is disingenuous at best.
The Discovery Institute has devised a strategy to get intelligent design taught in classrooms throughout the country. The so-called "Wedge Strategy" culminates in possible legal action "in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula" (Wedge 15). The goal of the people who support the teaching of intelligent design in biology class seems to be establishing the idea of a divine creator as an unquestionable, proven fact. This may be more harmful than helpful in turning people towards a religious lifestyle. For example, the design of the human eye wouldn't under any other circumstances be called "intelligent." "It is built upside down and backwards... for optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Shermer 17). Intelligent design reduces God to a watchmaker, using only what He has on hand to create existence. In order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, He needs to exist outside the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, the scientific community, because intelligent design is useless to them, essentially ignores it (Shermer xviii).
When forcing public schools to adopt intelligent design in biology class failed, the Discovery Institute fell back on the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. This was the idea that science teachers could present both intelligent design and evolution in class and teach why there was a debate over the teaching of both. However, this was also struck down because "Teach the Controversy" is also not science.
Intelligent design proponents may have been better served trying to get creationism taught in other classes such as debate, philosophy, or comparative religion. This would introduce their idea to a larger audience, in the proper forum, without having to resort to "Teach the Controversy" in science class. For anyone interested in a theological viewpoint of how life exists, it's not a far leap to assume that life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being. By pushing the idea of intelligent design as science, proponents of intelligent design hurt science and hurt religion.
Works Cited:
"FAQ: Does intelligent Design Theory Implement the Scientific Method?" Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Web. Mar. 27, 2011
Forrest, Barbara. "My Role in Kitzmiller vs. Dover." National Center for Science Education. Jan. - Apr. 2006. Web. Mar. 26, 2011
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. PAMD. 139. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2005. Web. Apr. 1, 2011
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York. Henry Holt. 2006. Print.
"The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" The Discovery Institute. Web. Apr. 3, 2011.
"What is Intelligent Design?" The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Web. Mar. 26, 2011.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-29 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-29 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-29 02:50 am (UTC)The complexities of snowflakes would be a more obvious example.
It doesn't take Jack Frost personally handpainting every flake, if there's inner atomic structure and bonds between molecules which kick in at certain temperatures.
Another example in the social sciences might be the development of websites like wikipedia, where volunteers and experts on various topics just show up and construct data entries because they want the correct information to be available to everybody. Nobody made them do it.
Why can these folks not see this same self-building process can be true to biology?
I'd have a lot more patience with such folks if they were living like the Amish and were complete Luddites, but they use radios and watch tv and wear acrylic fiber clothing and still go choosing what parts of the science they want to ignore when the whole thing is *also* an on-going, self-building edifice.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 01:50 am (UTC)And you're right, it's hypocritical to take advantage of modern science and medicine while claiming it's wrong.
Further, they are deliberately misleading people into believing that they can't be a person of faith and accept scientific theories. They set up a false dichotomy and people just accepted it. Suddenly, if you accepted the theory of evolution as even a possibility for the existence of life, you were going to burn in hell for all eternity.
Have you seen the news article where people in Waco, TX booed Bill Nye for saying the moon reflects light from the sun? One woman marched out with her children and shouted, "WE BELIEVE IN GOD!" This manufactured debate of science vs. religion needs to be put down. They don't conflict.
I ran out of time and space to go into the rebuttal of the argument that says that evolution is the same as eugenics, which is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard and one I genuinely wish I could have addressed here.
There is no filter on this entry and I can guarantee you that if certain people from my Facebook friends list come across it, they'll be upset and offended that I would not support ID.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-29 04:27 pm (UTC)My daughter is going to be going to Junior High soon and will be exposed to both theories and I am sure she will have many questions.
I think I am going to save your paper to use as reference.
Myself personelly I believe in Darwin but I think it is because I am such a scientist at heart. But I have faith to and maybe I don't believe in creatism (there is to many inconsistcy in the theory) Sometimes it is best to keep morals and facts seperate and embrace them both.
Great work Definitly deserving of an A
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 02:05 am (UTC)My presentation sparked an interesting discussion in my writing class (a rare occurrence in this particular class). It seems that the experience of most of the people in my class was they were taught evolution, but the teacher apologized and said that it was required. My guess is their teachers were bracing themselves for angry students.
My own biology teacher was part of the 1% of scientists who do not accept evolution as a legitimate scientific theory for the existence of life on Earth today. He said (and I quote), "This isn't what I believe." He left it at that and moved on. My husband was furious when I told him this, but I think that statement may have helped me reconcile evolution and faith.
During the discussion in my writing class, someone asked me what I believed. My answer was something like, "Firstly, you need to understand that you can't 'believe' in evolution. You can accept it or you can reject it, but you can't believe in it. I accept evolution and I believe that God is the reason we are here."
A few years ago, I posted a story about my own crisis of faith. It was actually sparked by the ID debate back in 2005. I remember watching all of these people absolutely furious that they couldn't say in Science class that God created all life. It made me doubt my own faith. Unlike ID proponents, I couldn't say I *know* God created life. I could only say I *believed* that God created life. Why was their faith so much stronger than mine? But then I remembered a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. "'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'" It's strange where you find your faith. Douglas Adams was an atheist. But I remember that line and I thought these people are trying to prove God exists, but proof doesn't exist because proof denies faith and we need faith. I don't need faith to know that 2+2=4. I know it. I can see it. I can prove it. I need faith to believe in God. I can see and experience the world around me, but I can't prove how it got here or what the purpose of being here is. I realized I wasn't having a crisis of faith. I was having a crisis of semantics. And that's why I resent people trying to teach creationism as fact. It takes away faith. It takes away the wonder. That's why I think ID hurts religion.
Wow, sorry. I got really rambly there, didn't I? :)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 02:33 am (UTC)I can never understand why society demands we make a choice about faith and science I think they could both be in a person life and both have meaning. I guess I am a bit more of a free thinker then most.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 03:06 am (UTC)After all, if we came up with it, it exists now, as part of the created world.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 01:30 pm (UTC)There's so much fear that if things aren't magic, there is no God. Does God need to be magic? Or can He be rational?
Edited to add another example:
When scientists found bacteria on Mars did that prove there was no God or did that prove that God's influence extends beyond Earth? Because I automatically went for the latter while other people were arguing there was no way bacteria was found on Mars.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 03:04 am (UTC)I'm not sure why God would *require* faith, we just have the reported word of the prophets and various believers and a long line of theologians in various religions of The Book all claiming this. Many of them like to argue why God needs faith, too.
I applaud the clarity of your thought process here.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-29 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 02:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 02:14 am (UTC)Yes, this was for my College Writing I class. This was a "You be the advocate!" paper. We each chose one of twelve topics and one person would argue a pro side and another would argue the con side. The guy who was supposed to argue against me dropped the class the day before the paper was due.
My teacher was really focused on trying to teach his students how to form an argument. Each of the topics was controversial. For example, some of the other topics were voluntary sterilization, government funding of Planned Parenthood, and whether or not mentally challenged individuals should be allowed in college.
The Planned Parenthood presentation was particularly difficult for me to sit through and I nearly walked out. The guy who presented the "the government should not fund Planned Parenthood" side of the argument gave a presentation that was downright offensive. He asked my opinion after class. I tried to focus on the good parts, but he pressed for a more thorough critique, so we ended up standing in the classroom for 15 minutes with me telling him all the reasons he was wrong. I did it politely, though. He shook my hand when we parted. Hopefully he learned something.
Wow, apparently I'm feeling chatty tonight! Sorry! :)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 03:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 04:26 am (UTC)The guy who presented the "the government should not fund Planned Parenthood" side of the argument gave a presentation that was downright offensive.
D: Oh, yuck. Did he have any good arguments at all, or was it all the usual uninformed crap? Is there a reason he asked for your opinion? It's really cool you were patient enough to go through his argument with him. I hope some of it got through!
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 01:49 pm (UTC)The PP guy made the mistake of not understanding the other side of the argument before arguing against it. He basically just hit pro-life websites and reiterated their argument. The problem with that was his facts didn't match. He claimed that abortion was 12%, 33%, and 99% of what Planned Parenthood does. When asked which one was correct, he didn't know.
The worst part was when he attempted to play a 5m40s YouTube video of that "sting" operation someone attempted where they edited the video to look far worse than what actually happened. Bear in mind, these presentations were only supposed to be 10 minutes long. Luckily, the video wouldn't play, so I didn't have to endure it.
I had issues with this class. While I appreciated the teacher trying to teach his students how to form an argument, he failed to teach the mechanics of actually writing a paper. He was there during this discussion after class. When we moved on from PP to the nitty gritty of my classmate's paper and presentation, he said he had a hard time getting his word count without repeating himself. I asked him if he knew how to brainstorm outline and went through the process of brainstorming, outlining, and then writing so his thoughts would be organized and he wouldn't end up repeating himself. The teacher interrupted and said, "I really should have taught that." Well, yeah.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-30 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-07 12:10 pm (UTC)I cannot wait to properly read this... I'd love to talk to you more about the Creation Museum issue in my current research. And soon as I get through marking this thesis I am getting onto that Irish History one that you just put up!
no subject
Date: 2011-05-07 11:08 pm (UTC)