Doubt vs. Ignorance

[l33tminion]

And now, a quick rant:

I've found the recent stupidity in Kansas (and, recently, Utah) really aggravating. It's not just that Intelligent Design isn't science. And it's not just that Intelligent Design is an attempt to sneak creationism into the schools, to create a God shaped hole in the science curriculum. It's that Intelligent Design, like all forms of "Creation Science" is opposed to intellectualism in general.

There is no limit to how absurd this sort of thing gets, and it's not something that just goes away.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_skye_/]

It is not science, true. I would not, however, want to go back to bible = literal truth, let me be clear, so Intelligent Design is a better choice for all the people out there who see God as the pillar of life. At least we're teaching mostly science and fact, and then throwing in the God angle as the causitory agent. When they grow up they'll know the truth and facts and can just realize that the God thing was the insecurity of men living in the Magical Worldview. To sum up, it seems a good compromise, as I am really the one teaching How the World Works to my children.

[l33tminion]

No, no it's not. Compromise requires change from both sides.

Furthermore, teaching Intelligent Design in science class is like teaching a pro-illiteracy theory in English class.

Honestly, this debate has nothing to do with the "truth" and "facts" about God vs. no God. It doesn't really have to do with how scientific facts are taught.

Rather it has to do with how scientific questions are taught. When faced with a scientific question, scientists seek to understand the answer. They formulate hypotheses, search for evidence, and run experiments. ID attempts to teach a different approach: Assume that it's God, and never question it again.

ID is an attempt to promote anti-intellectualism. It tries to set up faith as being a viable alternative to learning and to present the two as mutually exclusive.

(By the way, did you read the Dawkins article? What did you think?)

[l33tminion]

Intelligent Design is a philosophy, one that I don't agree with, but that isn't what upsets me. I agree that our education system probably undervalues philosophy, and that's a bad thing. I would have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught in a philosophy class.

Rather, what upsets me is the ID-as-Science agenda, which is about scientific questions. You can see my comment above for my opinion on that.

[kai.livejournal.com]

Well, they're just favoring the beliefs that make them happy.

[l33tminion]

I'm not objecting to them believing in ID. I'm just objecting to the damage they're trying to do to the public education system.

[kai.livejournal.com]

By promoting beliefs that (in their opinions) will make other people happy?

[l33tminion]

I'm objecting to the way they are promoting it.

[kai.livejournal.com]

How should they promote it?

[l33tminion]

They could advocate for it being taught as part of a philosophy or religion class.

[kai.livejournal.com]

Would that be as effective, though?

[l33tminion]

I think so. More importantly, it would be effective as it could be without interfering with people's right to a good education.

[kai.livejournal.com]

Inherent rights now? That's not gonna fly.

Anyway, the death (or drastic overhaul) of religion is pretty much inevitable. The sense of wonder about the world is rapidly disappearing, so we don't have as many gaps to fill with gods anymore. By opposing intellectualism, the theists can at least slow the process down, which ultimately makes them happy.

[l33tminion]

The world can do without the kind of religions that will be killed by this sort of change, but I doubt it will kill religion in general. I know my sense of wonder isn't dependent on a lack of understanding, and there have always been religious scientists.

[kai.livejournal.com]

The other factor is discordancy. So many religions, so many variations. It's all gonna blur together and lose its strength in the process.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with it in theory, provided it's taught in the proper contexts... Unfortunately, it's like communism in that it's fine in theory but nutjobs mess it up too often when it's put into practice. In the context of a lesson addressing what kind of questions the scientific method can and cannot answer, for example, a discussion of intelligent design would be entirely appropriate.

[l33tminion]

See my response to _skye_. It isn't that they want to teach intelligent design (although it is harmful that they want to teach it as science). It's that they want to teach faith as a mutually exclusive alternative to scientific discovery.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

See where I said "I have no problem with it... provided it's taught in the proper contexts."