Religions > Atheism > Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2006 12:52:12 AM |
| Object: |
Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200512210814.asp
It's God or Darwin
Competing designs.
By David Klinghoffer
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging
intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science,
raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its
theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of
Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism
itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have
philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be
readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge
John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules
that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional.
Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a
disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy
professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author
of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.
Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the
fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans
Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American
Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International,"
according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe
what she likes, but it's worth noting.
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess
disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately
I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin
partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say
especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the
truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly
regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to
confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing
Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of
children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt
Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in
cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is
clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist
on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive,
we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our
best to disable the memes they fight for."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins
is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he
forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates
God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his
book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible
to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas,
who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in
2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion
Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must
deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the
teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm
all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life,
is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of
science - to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of
science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and
rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an
end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to
which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the
most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent
combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of
websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious
journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation
and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the
accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with
cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of
reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this
teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers
daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back
and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for
using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history,
but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take
out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies
department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from
obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings
came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about
"mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting
when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an
e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want
[ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their
big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the
category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to
somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat
wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as
J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from
Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when
I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time,
it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry
it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white
clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was
Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own
puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies"
class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist
staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum
was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated
biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent
design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One
e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore
(obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that,
"Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in
their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending
4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He
reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the
Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God']
part."
God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that
Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the
Kitzmiller decision, writes that
many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is
utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is
antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to
religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific
experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science,
is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in
no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine
creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I
was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin
show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards
of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum
addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists
talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism
actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head
of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that
ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says
Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" - by discovering God's creative
powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far
explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every
presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in
the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument
for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive
evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden
infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's
animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of
religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the
Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not - no more
than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and
Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of
course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary
biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and
mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is
"to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the
media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a
"Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin
a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are
expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to
submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality.
Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can
never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species
as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the
way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode
intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws
impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw
the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no
need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent
reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have
both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure
materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out
of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's
why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the
reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a
truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or
one may choose God.
- David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews
Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. His website is
www.davidklinghoffer.com.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
29 Jan 2006 07:17:49 AM |
|
|
One may "choose" facts or one may choose fiction.
"Faith" means you don't need no stinkin' facts.
Like George Bush, for example.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
31 Jan 2006 03:45:01 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200512210814.asp
It's God or Darwin
Competing designs.
By David Klinghoffer
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging
intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science,
raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its
theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of
Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism
itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have
philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
Right at the start David, you and Wordy missed the boat. If ID is NOT
religion then its proponents should have presented scientific eveidence
for ID. And if ID really IS religion, then its proponents should have
the balls to say so. So far the ID proponents have neither science or
balls.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
05 Feb 2006 07:53:06 PM |
|
|
Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God
***********************
No need for any competition. Pantheism is correct: the Universe and
God are identical. Evolution (blind variation/selective retention) is
how complex forms are created from simpler building blocks,
recursively. No big deal. Next problem, please.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
29 Jan 2006 12:54:30 AM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200512210814.asp
Thank for the ***** fundie brat.
No one shows the idiocy of fundyism better than a fundie.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Competing Designs: One May Choose Darwin Or One May Choose God |
31 Jan 2006 03:36:22 PM |
|
|
"Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" <MAILTOcommoner@carcosa.de> skrev i melding
news:drhor6$hnr$3@online.de...
words of truth wrote:
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Sigwise, your verse is from the "Haavamaal", "The Words of the High".
Thought you might like this version
Vin sínum
skal mağr vinr vera,
şeim ok şess vin;
en óvinar síns
skyli engi mağr
vinar vinr vera.
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
