Horologium - Archives

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Driving the sympathetic away

After reading another toxic criticism of Intelligent Design (this time in the letters section of the current Newsweek on dead tree), I realized once again that the antics of the left (especially the anti-religious left) are offputting to me even though I may be sympathetic to their views. I cannot possibly be the only one who is disgusted by the scathing condescension and sanctimony coming from leftists who eagerly bash anyone to whom religion is anything but an afterthought. If I am part of a larger group, the left may be working against their stated goals, by turning supporters into opponents.

While I tend to agree with elements of both evolution and intelligent design, my views lean more towards the former rather than the latter. However, the evolution absolutists out there insist God had no hand in the formation of the species, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a mindless fool. That, to me, is far more insulting than the condemnation I would get from a fundamentalist Christian, who would (at worst) tell me that I am going to hell because I don't believe in the bible. While I share a common belief with the evolutionist camp, I have developed great sympathy for ID because its advocates are not a bunch of screaming militants, despite an attempt to portray them as such. I'm sorry, I can see who is doing the screeching, and it's not the ID propenents.

I have a similar reaction to the abortion debate, although both sides have issued a lot of ugly rhetoric. I find the "it's murder" argument to be much less offensive than the "keep your religion off of my ovaries" line of thought, even though I am lukewarmly pro-choice. (My belief is that I'm never going to be pregnant, which means that it's a decision I'll never have to make. It's a cop-out, perhaps, but it's where I stand on the issue.) Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but the pro-life side takes a stand on the principle of the issue, whereas the left uses ad hominem attacks on the intelligence or motivations of those with whom they disagree. (There are plenty of exceptions on the abortion issue, however, so don't cite examples to "prove" otherwise. And I am specifically condemning those who bomb abortion clinics, so don't even go there. That's not the same issue.)

Maybe it's just a bit of non-conformism on my part, since the current default position for both issues is the liberal side (abortion is legal and evolution is what is taught in schools). I cannot say with any certainty if my views would change were the situation to be different, although I would like to believe that I would maintain the consistency of my position.

posted at 11:29 AM |

permalink | Comments (4)

I think a lot of people see it as you do, Timekeeper; both are volatile issues, and it's just easier not to have a dog in that fight. It's fortunate that the left is often so very unpleasant, or the religious among us would have an even rougher time of it, since we do tend to thwart the left in its goals far too often for their tastes. I have to say, though, that it always makes me sad to see someone refuse to grapple with two of the most important parts of humanity: life and afterlife.

As for evolution, I have no problem at all having the facts taught as facts - micro-evolution - and then having macro-evolution presented as the theory it is, complete with a clear definition of theory (i.e. an explanation that seems a good fit for the facts we know, but not provable in an absolute sense). I realize that ID has an amorphous quality to it, and always will - it definitely straddles the line between hard science and the unknown, possibly unknowable. But it's unfair - dishonest, even - to say that ID falls back on a "well, God can do whatever He wants" whenever fact doesn't fit the current ID theory, which is what evolutionists say. What evolutionists are doing now is crushing dissent, going against their own vaunted scientific method. If they had no fears, they'd just say, fine. Go out and do research, develop specific hypotheses and test them, and we'll give them an honest review. They don't. They attack and belittle and obfuscate. They are the ones who are antagonistic.

We can't prove God. I can tell you that right now. He's not reproducible, and certainly not controllable by man. But we can, scientifically, explore whether patterns that a purposed design would predict are in fact there. The pattern finding is science; the speculation on the pattern maker is religion. And the rejection of a potentially robust line of research is rank hypocrisy among those who call themselves scientists.

posted by susanna on August 27, 2005 09:45 PM

First, I don't think that the criticism of ID is a liberal/conservative issue. Many conservatives are critical and dismissive of ID as science.

Second, Susanna said:

But we can, scientifically, explore whether patterns that a purposed design would predict are in fact there. The pattern finding is science; the speculation on the pattern maker is religion. And the rejection of a potentially robust line of research is rank hypocrisy among those who call themselves scientists.

My question is how does one discover a purposed design in order to know what patterns it would predict? In order to have purposed design, there must be a designer. How can one gather any information on purpose without knowing any information about the designer? Science explores patterns all the time. That is generally what science does. We then use this knowledge to explain function. Science does not assign purpose (at least in the sense I think you're using the term).

posted by Steven on August 31, 2005 01:21 PM