God or evolution? That's serious
So why can't we have a serious debate
It appears that New Mexico has a local tie to the Ben Stein anti-Darwinism documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, currently in theaters.
The Santa Fe New Mexican today profiled a pastor in Santa Fe who helped produce the hour-and-a-half long film, the Rev. Logan Craft.
Craft, 47, told writer Tom Sharpe that the thesis of the film is that proponents of Darwin's theory are censoring "intelligent design," which holds that a higher power created the universe.
And they have someone of Ben Stein's intelligence to sell the idea.
Ben Stein, for those of us of a particular generation, is frozen in time as the monotone teacher in the cult film Ferris Bueller's Day Off. For those slightly younger, he's the host of Win Ben Stein's Money. And for those of us who wake up early enough on Sunday morning to catch CBS Sunday Morning, he is an occasional commentator.
What you may not know is that he graduated valedictorian from Yale Law School and was a speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford. So he's no slouch when it comes to intelligence.
Craft told Sharpe that he saw the reaction the film is getting from some corners -- some people have excoriated the work -- as similar to the reaction conservatives have to one of Michael Moore's films. Craft said he just hopes the film makes people think.
Good luck. That may be difficult on this issue. Not because the discussion over how we humans and everything else got here is uninteresting and barren of intriguing arguments and insights from people on both sides. Far from it. It's because the issue has become so politicized that nuanced arguments get lost in the din of people shouting at each other and those on both sides of the argument see it as a wedge issue (read weapon) to club their 'enemies' with.
Here's to hoping we as a nation have a serious debate about serious issues. But that takes hard work, and research, and a willingness to listen. So, for now, I'm skeptical that most people debating this issue will take the time to have a serious exchange of ideas.
Comments:
Posted 05/13/2008 15:51 with
Yale Law School is not Yale School of Biology and/or Yale Divinity School. the notion of intelligent design (re: creationism) is so easy to debunk it is scary.
take an 8 1/2×11 sheet of paper and draw a line in the center of the page from top to bottom. Open a bible (do not get sucked into using a king james version) and begin to write the order of creation in chapter one of genesis on one side of the page. On the other side of the page write the order of creation in the story in chapter 2 of genesis…
What you will quickly discover is a different order of creation…
completely different…supposedly written by the same “intelligent designer”
A 4,000 year old pseudo-text is hardly the place to look for accurate
information about the origins of life, the world, or anything else.
How ‘bout if for the 21st century we abandon the fairy tales and deal with some scientific data. John Shipley
Posted 05/16/2008 06:30 with
Serious debate? Please explain how there can be a “serious” debate about a fraud?
As pushed by religious anti-evolutionists, “academic freedom” and “teach the controversy” (aka, “teach both sides,” “give equal time,” “balanced treatment” and “teach the strengths and weaknesses”) are campaign frauds for the scientifically-vacuous blunder called “intelligent design.” Which is a repackaged edition of the pretend science labeled “scientific creationism.” Which is a 20th-century oxymoron version of creationism. Which, in the Christian tradition, is the literal belief in an account of creation given in the Book of Genesis. Which is exactly what the peddlers of these mantras are getting at.
In other words, “teach the controversy” and “academic freedom” are sneaky ways of impregnating a particular brand of religion into science classes. And Bryan dentist Don McLeroy, a Biblical literalist who believes that the Earth is but 6,000 years of age or so and that humans walked with the dinosaurs, is using his powers as chairperson of the Texas State Board of Education to inject the “teach the controversy” canard into public school science classes. “Academic freedom” legislation will also no doubt be introduced in the next Texas Lege by the usual irresponsible gaggle of hidebound right-wingers.
“Teach the controversy” and “academic freedom” pushers are sneak-thieves who violate their responsibility as adults to equip children with an honest education. By employing deception in trying to force their religious beliefs into public schools, these religious bullies also mock the very deity and religion they profess to respect and honor.
If the “teach the controversy” and “academic freedom” bait and switch hucksters were truly interested in promoting critical thinking, why is it they oppose doing that in their own house? Why don’t they endeavor to help students freely and critically analyze and openly debate the strengths and weaknesses of religious dogma and supernatural beliefs—and of abstinence-only sex ed? What are they afraid of?
Posted 05/16/2008 17:37 with
Thanks for your comment. I don’t believe I ever recommended that intelligent design should be taught in science class in the post. At least I don’t remember writing that—and reading my post I can’t find any place where I say that.
I guess when I speak of having a serious debate about serious ideas I mean that those involved first should start from a position of humility recognizing that their positions come with presuppositions too. It is curious when I hear snippets of the debate over intelligent design that some, not all, proponents of each side—creationists as well as those who defend science—remind me of the fundamentalists I recall from my childhood. They make absolutist statements that are sometimes ridiculous on their face. Yes, it is difficult to make a persuasive argument that a sacred text written by a people who interpreted the world differently than we do, and which has been translated throughout the ages—from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Latin, to Greek, to German, to English—can reveal the inner workings of the universe. It is also difficult to argue that science was somehow handed down to us in a perfect form as if from Mt. Sinai to give us a pristine picture of how the universe works. The history of science reveals a much different picture, one of struggle, of wrestling with hypotheses and data and of great successes and great failures. In short, it is the scientific method at work. It is one thing to believe in the capacity of the scientific method to reveal certain things about the natural world, and about ourselves. The scientific method has enabled medical science to make great strides. It is another to trust implicitly in the scientific method’s ability to answer all questions about the human condition, i.e. scientism. Science, at its core, is about investigating the empirical world, phenomena that can be tested and can be falsified, as Karl Popper argued. (The last time I checked it was not possible to prove or disprove God by science—no offense to Thomas Aquinas and his proofs). Popper, as you know, was an influential thinker who helped overthrow a particular way of doing science that had grown out of classical empiricism. And someday, if not already, Popper’s view will be overthrown. As Richard Rhodes wrote in The Making of the Atomic Bomb, science requires a certain set of beliefs too. Perhaps science, as we Westerners understand that concept in the 21st century, and religion are two ways of looking at the world but ones that ask different questions. And for that reason, why can’t they be compatible?
Posted 05/16/2008 18:36 with
To continue my thought, by compatible I do not mean that they should share the same classroom. I mean it is unfair to expect science to answer questions that religion tries to get at, and vice versa. Because of that, some people see little conflict in believing in a higher power and in believing in the power of the scientific method to reveal certain things about the human experience. (For those who dismiss religion as nothing but fairy tales, it is worth nothing that religion has been around a lot longer than science. Yes, it has led to horrible things in some cases. But to define religion by those episode alone is as unfair as defining secularism by pointing to the Soviet Union as representative of every secularist society. It is also worth wondering what people in 500 years will think of our science [will it be the same as the view of some in our society of the Mayan culture—marveling at their mastery of geometry but dismissing their cosmology as simplistic? Science, after all, does not exist without a philosophical foundation]) Unfortunately, the battle over whether to teach intelligent design in the science classroom is not a thoughtful debate where many of the participants actually debate ideas because the debate is not about ideas, but about power. It is about who gets to define what is knowledge and what is not knowledge. And that is a titanic struggle.