Sunday, August 14, 2005
Intelligent design? Dumb people.
OK. New topic. By now everyone is aware of the effort to bring intelligent design into the science classrooms in schools. There are a couple of points worth making.
First, we need to point out that logic and empiricism are the essential building blocks of thought in science. That's where the "science" comes from in science class. Second, the divine intervention referred to in intelligent design is a faith-based approach to explaining why we are here.
Now, I have no bones with teaching religion. Let me say that again - teaching religion is OK. But I object to teaching it in a science curriculum. Injecing faith into science is evangelism and supporting it is verification of our society's capacity for ignorance. Note to self: NEVER underestimate the stupidity of a group.
At issue is how we come to believe things. Scientific disciplines seek to support ideas (nothing can be proven) based on what can be demonstrated and verified. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, come down to faith. One chooses to believe this and that. This choice-based belief has no place in scientific thought. It does have a place in other classes.
As a child, evolution explained just so much, the idea that God-touched-the-monkey and-Adam-was-born allowed me to reconcile what we were being taught in school and in catechism. It was all fine and dandy. Then I grew up.
Today I can hold both paradigms in my head and have no concerns over the conflicting notions. I also recognize the powerful ignorance of those seeking to force the conflicting ideas together based on their desire for faith-based theories to dominate our society. While these people argue for faith in the classroom, I don't hear them begging for scientific doctrine to enter their Sunday schools. Yes, Pastor Johnson, where is your proof that angels exist? That Christ rose from the dead and that there is only one God? I have a few other questions, but we can start with these.
The intelligent design movement doesn't refer to aliens designing the world. It is a fundamentalist christian movement. These christians (a different brand than mine) want to tell us who invented everything because they're sure they know. Not because they actually do know anything, the basis for their wisdom is that they have chosen to believe it.
So, the folks who want intelligent design taught in science class really want to teach our children what to believe in, based on a religious text of their own choosing. Never mind diluting empirical thought and scientific exploration. I mean, who needs a scientific approach when you get to choose what you want to believe? You know, we've seen this before. Education based on what the body politic has chosen to believe rather than free thought. They have lots of it in the Middle East. Religious-based education. Great. We could have that too. It's working out really well over there, isn't it? The religious wing sure has a lot of influence. Gosh. What are we waiting for?
First, we need to point out that logic and empiricism are the essential building blocks of thought in science. That's where the "science" comes from in science class. Second, the divine intervention referred to in intelligent design is a faith-based approach to explaining why we are here.
Now, I have no bones with teaching religion. Let me say that again - teaching religion is OK. But I object to teaching it in a science curriculum. Injecing faith into science is evangelism and supporting it is verification of our society's capacity for ignorance. Note to self: NEVER underestimate the stupidity of a group.
At issue is how we come to believe things. Scientific disciplines seek to support ideas (nothing can be proven) based on what can be demonstrated and verified. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, come down to faith. One chooses to believe this and that. This choice-based belief has no place in scientific thought. It does have a place in other classes.
As a child, evolution explained just so much, the idea that God-touched-the-monkey and-Adam-was-born allowed me to reconcile what we were being taught in school and in catechism. It was all fine and dandy. Then I grew up.
Today I can hold both paradigms in my head and have no concerns over the conflicting notions. I also recognize the powerful ignorance of those seeking to force the conflicting ideas together based on their desire for faith-based theories to dominate our society. While these people argue for faith in the classroom, I don't hear them begging for scientific doctrine to enter their Sunday schools. Yes, Pastor Johnson, where is your proof that angels exist? That Christ rose from the dead and that there is only one God? I have a few other questions, but we can start with these.
The intelligent design movement doesn't refer to aliens designing the world. It is a fundamentalist christian movement. These christians (a different brand than mine) want to tell us who invented everything because they're sure they know. Not because they actually do know anything, the basis for their wisdom is that they have chosen to believe it.
So, the folks who want intelligent design taught in science class really want to teach our children what to believe in, based on a religious text of their own choosing. Never mind diluting empirical thought and scientific exploration. I mean, who needs a scientific approach when you get to choose what you want to believe? You know, we've seen this before. Education based on what the body politic has chosen to believe rather than free thought. They have lots of it in the Middle East. Religious-based education. Great. We could have that too. It's working out really well over there, isn't it? The religious wing sure has a lot of influence. Gosh. What are we waiting for?
