Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The Catholic church has weighed in on the interior design, er, I mean intelligent design fantasy (bold italics are mine):

from America Weekly Catholic Magazine

Chris Matthews, the GOP & Evolution
Posted at: 2009-05-07 08:58:53.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters

I love Chris Matthews. He has an uncanny ability to locate his interlocutor’s jugular and go for it. So it was the last two nights when he was discussing the GOP’s credibility, or lack thereof, on scientific issues.

Tuesday night, in a discussion with GOP Conference Chairman Mike Spence, Matthews was asking Spence if the GOP’s proposals on climate change were credible, and after Spence suggested that "the science is very mixed" (it is not), Matthews said he thought the problem was deeper, that the Republicans are perceived as hostile to science. Then, in classic Matthews’ style, he looked at Spence and asked, "Do you believe in evolution?" Spence flailed for a bit, but he could only repeat the mantra, "I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is within them" and said he could not comment on how that creation was accomplished. Spence hedged and dodged, invoked "Inherit the Wind," but he refused to answer Matthews’ question.

The moment recalled a debate during the GOP primaries when Jim VandeHei asked Sen. John McCain if he believed in evolution and McCain paused. The pause did not permit McCain time to consult the scientific evidence, only the political evidence. McCain, to his credit, answered, yes. Several of his colleagues asserted that they do not believe in evolution.

Wednesday night, former Congressman Tom Tancredo took the hot seat on Hardball. He ran to the position that he supports Intelligent Design but then failed to accurately characterize it. Tancredo said he believed what science taught about the processes by which the world was created but that he believed God was capable of working through those processes, but that is not what Intelligent Design argues. Intelligent Design theory argues that the complexity of life, such as the human eye, is such that it could not be achieved through the processes of natural selection as Darwin argued, and indicates direct Divine intervention or planning. Tancredo also suggested that advocates of both theories are roughly equally divided, which is not true.

Note to GOP candidates: Start your answer by pointing out that the question is wrong. No one, repeat no one, believes in evolution. The whole point of science is that it is demonstrable and not dependent upon belief. Science, as I have argued in these pages, has recently been invoked to justify positions that are not scientifically arrived at: scientism is not science when it seeks to displace ethics and philosophy. Is it really that hard to grasp that science can only study "the planet," but that most human beings are saying something profound, and we believe profoundly true, when we refer to "Creation." Science can tell us the how of the planet, but only faith can tell us the why of Creation.

Of course, the GOP is dependent upon its conservative, evangelical base, but we Catholics are not so confined. Recently, at the premiere Roman university, the Gregorian, there was a conference on "Biological evolution: facts and theories." A group of Intelligent Design advocates asked to participate and they were refused: Sorry, this is only for scientists, philosophers and theologians, not advocates.

Faith and reason must always find ways to work together. As Pope John Paul II said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." Religion and science ask different questions about the same subject matter, humankind and our world. They will inevitably come into conflict occasionally but that is only because our knowledge is still fallible. There can be no inherent conflict. The great "et, et" as Pope Benedict XVI never tires of saying characterizes the catholic approach to the world.

I actually had never thought of that myself truth to tell. Is it an original idea Jack? It sounds great. I must admit that the earth feels stationary. It looks pretty flat as well. I live on the edge of a large flood plain and it's as flat as a pancake that Auntie Nellie sat on inadvertently.

And couldn't a ball of nuclear fire go off with a bang at any moment. It's not nice telling the kids that those sustaining rays of golden light are the radiations of a ball of nuclear fire. Won't it make them nervous? I know media and other institutions want them to be nervous but that's beside the point.

It's as dispiriting to know that's one's life and all the glories it can embrace is the result of a ball of nuclear fire as it is for Albertans to discover that their fine educational system is the result of rotting and decomposed plant and animal life from millions of years ago which they happen to be sat on top of.

It sort of knocks all the stuffing out of one don't you think.

I quite like your chariot idea with the God rolling around heaven all day with our sacred sun in the bucket seat dazzling us. It's romantic. It has a lot of possibilities. We know He won't desert us because He would have no one to worship Him and simply by popping a nickel into the offertory box on Sunday morning He might do us a favour. Where there's hope there's life.

And what about Jennifer Whiteside? If the sun is a mere, meaningless ball of nuclear fire then how is she not a mere epidermis containing organs and puddings and plasma and other stuff.

Are we being misled by a bunch of romantic fuckwits who can't face up to the facts as they are known to science.

What difference would it make to science if there is a God in a chariot? Which scientific laws would have to be set aside?

Still--I can understand those who don't feel they have had many favours done thinking the ball of nuclear fire is a preferable explanation and going into science.

But I don't know. Not everybody goes into science is something I do know. It's the favourite subject for the spotty little four-eyed swots who can't play cricket or pull birds.

Here's what I wish McCain had said, "Biological evolution is a scientific fact. People need to get over it and move on. And they need to find a way to make their religion fit reality, and not the other way around." (unfortunately we're never going to hear that much truth from any politician).

The question was loaded -- do you believe in evolution? That's now like asking, "Do you believe the moon does not rotate?" or "Do you believe the laws of physics." It reads like a question on Leno's "quiz shows for dummies." It's politics, so in trying to "keep in simple," they will keep it for the simple minded.

"Do you believe the moon is made of green cheese?"

Your use of italics in "believe" is spot on! For many christians who do not understand evoluation based on their religion, the answer is a foregone conclusion. Even if the question is asked differently such as "do you understand evolution?," many will show ignorance, because many have not taken biology classes or studied about Charles Darwin.

When asking questions to the masses about evolution in a christian nation, the conclusions are simple to arrive at.

How would you suggest the question should be phrased?

Are you convinced evolution is a valid scientific theory?

Even though the facts are overwhelming, asking a politician if it is scientific fact is also a loaded question. Why can't those who still believe in God but know evolution is a fact just qualify their affirmative answers with, "Yes, but I believe a higher power started it all in motion." Also, "Yes, and I go to church which is a personal subject I won't discuss here."

Perhaps the simple minded are a larger group than you think LW.

In 1937, a New England philanthropist called Mr Filene, set up The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It's aim was to provide high school and university students with guidance on the evaluation of non-rational propaganda with regard to Nazi spin-doctoring and other forms of the black art.

But it was realised that the Allied Governments were also engaging in the activity and it was thought that the desirability of analysing propaganda was a trifle tactless. The Institute was closed in 1941.

This was due to pressure having been brought to bear by certain persons who felt that such guidance for students was profoundly objectionable.

The educational eastablishment objected because they claimed that such teaching would make adolescents unduly cynical which, of course, it would.

The military authorities objected because they said that recruits might start to analyse military regulations and the utterances of training staff.

Clergymen objected as they felt that such an approach would undermine belief and reduce church attendance.

The advertising industry objected because they said that the instruction would undermine brand loyalties and reduce sales. One can easily imagine the effect of a scientific appraisal of "beauty products" bearing in mind the actual nature of the human female even as Schopenhauer described so discreetly depicted it.

It is well known that the food industry has lobbied strenuously to maintain dietary advice which resulted in dangerous amounts of saturated fat being included in the 1956 Four Foods promotion in schools. Few people even today know that chocolate is mainly lard and sugar and when I have pointed this out to various ladies they have all said that they wished I had not told them.

What the movie and television industries would make of well taught propaganda analysis hardly bears thinking about.

And the sad, old codger Bob Dylan, who is at No 1 just now in our album charts, did remind everyone in the old days --"Look out kid, they keep it all hid", and that "the truth is obscure, too profound and too pure, to live it you have to explode". And he advised "Don't ask me nothin' about nothin' Babe- I might just tell you the truth."

This post is intended to be a small exercise in the analysis of your propaganda. You are choosing a very simple example- does the moon not rotate? Which is a matter of little consequence unlike the items listed above.

No--the truth is that you have an axe to grind. On the evidence of the Prop 8 thread it is a sexual matter of some importance to you.

You have no interest in truth per se which is quite sensible in my opinion. Very few people wish to go anywhere near the matter in principle.

Thus, and it is logical, you are defining the whole population as "simple minded", excluding yourself of course, because in science one doesn't choose one simple example for one's own purposes and then draw from it a general conclusion and especially not one which sets up an invidious comparison placing you on the higher ground. Conclusions have to be applicable in all cases and I have shown up above that there are many other cases upon which your silence is inexplicably deafening.

A2Kers deserve to have your propaganda exposed for what it is--special pleading. It sure is simple minded to think that your fellow Americans are dummies and simple minded on the evidence you present. I'd bet you believe all sorts of shite of far greater significance than the fusty old bones selectively culled from the foggy ruins of time.

And you're so trite and ordinary in your literary expression too. I wonder who it was that diverted your attention from the great writers. It is quite obvious your attention has been diverted from them and it is also quite obvious that you seek to make a bigger splash in the world than you have earned to right to do.

A word of advice--don't go around telling everybody the truth. You'll get ostractised. You might even get arrested.

Intelligent Design is a religious take on creation. It has nothing to do with science, simply a spiritual litmus test.

If you contact the Discovery Institute and inform its staff of your fantastic insight I feel sure they will pack up what they are doing and get a proper job.

It's funny really how much science the anti-IDers don't wish to know about.

There's Mr Filene just now. There's Wilhem Reich on mass psychology. There's Freud and Watson and Skinner and Pavlov. There's Bertrand Russell on the immateriality of matter. There's DM Armstong on puppets. There are studies on drugs. Placebo research. The psychosomatic realm. Autosuggestion. JC Bose on plant sensitivity. Dr Poetzl. Dr Barnard. The physiology of exitable cells.

That's just a few I can remember. All on Ignore. And all of far greater importance than what happened in the dark mists of the long gone.

There's something very suspicious about these threads.

I'm expressing my opinion. I don't believe in literal translation of the bible, but that doesn't mean I don't respect it's teachings. I also believe that God granted us scientific curiosity which has allowed us to proper and live well. I think it is sad that some people believe that evolution is anti-God, after all, wouldn't God have been the origin of evolution.

In my lifetime I have seen a switch in Christian beliefs from keeping holy the sabbath to let's go shopping after Church. I'm not responsible for this shift and I certainly am not interested in trying to convince anyone to change their belief system. Occasionally I wonder how happy it makes God to have his name on currency. I would never try to change that custom, it doesn't matter to me at all. I just wonder if it really is the way to honor our creator, and also if you have tons of printed money in your wallet does that mean you love God more than one who has less?

I didn't recall any trolls in the Bible, either, but they're certainly here, as contradictory as the good book, or a politician. This particular one would like to believe he can dictate how you're suppose to think, what you're suppose to read, just like the individuals he is suppose to abhor -- Goebbels comes to mind. He's a propagandist who tries to call attention away from himself by calling everyone else what he actually is. It's a dumb tactic but he seems comfortable with it.

Still on about trolls eh LW?

There is nothing in my posts that even hints at what I would like anybody to think or believe or read. They are simply a block of print and it is of no consequence who wrote them or in what state of mind they were composed in. They stand alone for the reader of them to make what he or she wishes. They deal in facts.

You're fact free foolish rant is just another snow-job to try to cover a total inabilty to respond in any meaningful way. And all it does is expose that inability to view. You're a blustering philistine.

You're the one calling up "science", as if it is a spectre, to justify yourself and I cited scientists and you run away.

You're the one labelling others simple-minded and dummies. You're the one blurting out unsubstantiated assertions of the most common ordinariness.

You guys are starting to give me a headache. Is this idea sharing or just an opportunity to define one belief as more godly than another? Actually this is rethorical, I already know the answer.

Really when you look over the abuses that have been performed under the notion "it is what God wants", you might want to swear off all organized religions. I will admit however, that religious zealots have been good for defense industry, genocide, separating limbs from the bodies of children to terrify villiages, and a great excuse for rape and plunder.

Don't you think that your post is a trifle tactless on an American site?

I think youve not been part of the "core" discussion of theis thread. The purpose, and the title, was to discuss whether Intelligent design was actually a valid scientific dicipline and therefore, under the US Constitutions Bill of Rights, able to be taught within cience classes of public high schools, without getting in the way of the First Amendment .

I think we had dispatched that, indeed ID WAS a religious inquiry (A later court decision in PA backed us up). Most of the recent stuff has been mere "No it aint" v "Yes it is" crap that always goes on in these kinds of debates. Maybe wandel should just abandon this thread to spendius (Sort of like moving a rotted corpse into the living room to keep the flies out of the kitchen), and maybe spendi wont realize that everyones left .

Of course I will realise my becoming "Last Man Standing". It's my ambition.

And will I crow if it ever happens.

OMG, you've enticed him with the smell of the rotting corpse of ID and he does intend to sit by it until he's picked it clean.