Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Intelligent Design is not science

Well Duh...

It is nice to win one. Judge John E. Jones, a republican appointed by President Bush delivered a crushing blow to the Intelligent Design movement yesterday. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it is simply repackaged creationism. Critical thinkers the world over have been saying the same thing for years. On the strength of a precedent setting judicial opinion, we may be able to roll back the idiotic decisions made in Kansas and other states.

The funny thing is, I have not actually run into an old school creationist in a long time. On Monday night, the night before Judge Jones’ decision, I ate dinner with a friend in the Virginia town of Herndon. During our meal, my friend disclosed (I think they call it witnessed) his conversion to Christianity. It was a compelling story, as most are, yet his story fell on deaf ears. The two other members of our dinner party were an atheist and an agnostic. At one point, my Christian friend turned to me and asked if I knew how old the Grand Canyon was. I responded with not really, but I know it’s really old. He replied with, “What would you say if I told you it was only a few thousand years old”. I nearly choked – here I was talking to a man with a Ph.D who was also a logic-defying creationist. I listened to his arguments and offered a few counter arguments, but it was hopeless. Any idea that countered the Bible’s story of creation was “Darwinism” and to him, completely evil.

There is no hope that a judicial decision will influence a creationist or id proponent. They are true believers. Logic and reason do not penetrate blind faith.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


rich said...

Actually, read the decision more carefully before you get too enthusiastic. The decision sucks. It imposes substantial restrictions on free speech. The state is now using its coercive power to restrict speech in a fairly broad way. As a libertarian I would expect state coercion to be of substantial concern.

beautifulatrocities said...

Someone pointed out that the whole intelligent design thing acts hurts the faith-based argument by accepting a science-based subtext

The 502 said...

Rich - What part of the decision are you referring to? I haven't seen anything about the restrictions of free speech.

mojoey - Great site. I've read through a few of your posts, and completely agree with your views on tolerance. Keep it up.

You have been linked. said...

This goes back and forth between to very hardheaded sides. This is an easy enough concept to grasp, so where does all the animosity come from. It comes from the far right and far left sides of the argument, the Atheist Scientists and the Religious Fundamentalists. Both sides of these two groups hold the other in contempt so strongly that they refuse to listen to neither rhyme nor reason. It is virtually impossible to have intelligible discussion between representatives from these two extremist groups. Why can’t they both just get along.
Raymond B

rich said...

An injunction about what may or may not be discussed in the classroom is necessarily a restriction of free speech. This implies that the state may now approve what may or may not be considered science. Here's the thing, they are right in this case! But they should not have that power.

1) I agree with beautifulatrocities, ID is a desperate rearguard action. It is doomed to fail.

2) mojoey is sounding more and more fundy in his criticism of religion and the religious. I am dissapointed that he is backing away from his previous position of skeptical agnosticism and embracing positive atheism. Moejoey, you've become positively evangelical! I thought you had strong feelings about prostelizing...


Mojoey said...

Ouch Rich - I started focusing more on atheism in this blog becasue of something you said a few months ago - don't remember?

Fact is - I am an Atheist. But I do not feel others need to be so I'm not prostelizing either.

brad said...

It is nice to seeing a little dialogue here.

Rich, What is bad a bout proselytizing or being "evangelical". How funny? You are pro free speech but anti proselytizing. I thought proselytizing is what free speech is all about. Weren;t the founding father's trying to evangelize people toward democracy vs monarchy. If a person really thinks religion is bad then they should preach it from the rooftops. Of course no matter what MoJoey thinks he thinks, religion is bad is not his beef. It is reductionistic nutballs that are bad.

Point: Evangelism and proselytizing is very very good and if one has a cause he should try to convince others of his position.