Enemy at the Gates

[Pah]

Enemy at the Gates
II'd like to call your attention to and discuss/debate a new article. It goes to the motives of Intelligent Design (and beyond!) and follows a little bit the organizations pushing and funding ID.

 

[ChrisP]

Enemy at the Gates
II'd like to call your attention to and discuss/debate a new article. It goes to the motives of Intelligent Design (and beyond!) and follows a little bit the organizations pushing and funding ID.

Hi Pah!

A very well written article indeed. Mr Holderness' points regarding the infiltration of the political system by he Discovery Institute and associated organisations are well thought through and an intriguing insight into the workings of American Politics.

That being said, what is happening now is not too dis-similar from the way any group goes about gaining ascendancy of it's beliefs.

When the theory of Evolution was first brought to the general populace, it too was targeted at points within a Monotheistic creation theory that would be easy to attack and disprove.

This more recent political maneuvering, is less about whether or not God should be the only theory, than it is about power. If evolution is treated poorly in the full view of the public it gives the conservative right more power in society.

As always, when power and money are involved, faith and belief (either religious or irreligious) take a backseat to a few greedy men's desire for power.

This is the nature of the world. Most humans like to be led because it is easier to be led than it is to think for yourself.

However in the authors' assertion that they seek to destroy science I disagree. Not many in this day and age can argue the validity of science. It is has far too many applications throughout the world and is too widely proven and accepted as a means to achieve, to be destroyed.

I see this more as an arguement as to where Science came from; and as always that is a matter of personal proofs.

Again, a very well written and informative article. Thanks for the link.

 

[Pah]

I should emphasis that I did not write the article - my talent and research is utterly lacking. The article author is identified at the top of the article and the copyright provisions are at the bottom.

I tend to agree with the issue of power you raised but I see it as the means to an end which tends to corrupt the result. Sectarians playing in a secular world become more secular and less sectarian.

 

[ChrisP]

I should emphasis that I did not write the article - my talent and research is utterly lacking. The article author is identified at the top of the article and the copyright provisions are at the bottom.

I tend to agree with the issue of power you raised but I see it as the means to an end which tends to corrupt the result. Sectarians playing in a secular world become more secular and less sectarian.

Oh, my apologies to the author. It is very well written though. I have edited my post accordingly.

The end you are referring to is an eradication of secular beliefs? Sectarian beliefs are no longer taught in public schooling systems, but religion and religious studies are currently undergoing a revival. Do you think this will not hold true with secular studies, and if so why?

I agree about your point regarding Sectarians becoming more secular. This, in Abrahamic beliefs is the 'temptation' spoken of by their various prophets. To religions such as Taoism, Buddhism and other eastern religions, it is the desire that must be denied.

 

[Pah]

Oh, my apologies to the author. It is very well written though. I have edited my post accordingly.

The end you are referring to is an eradication of secular beliefs? Sectarian beliefs are no longer taught in public schooling systems, but religion and religious studies are currently undergoing a revival. Do you think this will not hold true with secular studies, and if so why?

I agree about your point regarding Sectarians becoming more secular. This, in Abrahamic beliefs is the 'temptation' spoken of by their various prophets. To religions such as Taoism, Buddhism and other eastern religions, it is the desire that must be denied.

It was noted in the article the goal transends secularism to encompass all materialism. It seeks an establishment of a theocracy through theo-science (to coin an appropiate term). It's future address is the "City on the God" whose suburbs will swallow most of the world. This is not a puny scheme nor a half-hearted goal.

Revivals have fluttered throughout history. Many have failed to be preserved and this one needs attention before critical freedoms vanish except for the religiously privileged.

 

[s2a]

Re: Enemy at the Gates

Thanks Pah, for bringing this article to the forefront. While there is little within referenced the commentary that is new to my understanding, it's important to fairly expose the motivations and highlight the financial supporters of major ID spokespersons/organizations.

As anyone who is comfortable with science and associative technologies might concede, it's the very terminologies and couched conclusions that scientists employ in defining explained phenomena that is so readily (and easily) mischaracterized and misrepresented by those that are uncomfortable with such explanations, as they may be perceived to be in conflict with their religious beliefs. Such are the invoked "rights" of those to criticize things they don't understand, and mock or fear things they know little to nothing about.

"Science" (that all-encompassing monolithic entity of multiple conspiracies against religious beliefs) does itself no favors in utilizing terms like: "principle"; "suggests"; "hypothesis"; "probable"; "most likely"; and, "theory". Science uses this terminology to express candor and intellectual integrity in presentation of evidenced-based conclusions, so as to exclude inferences of total agreement or irrevocable 100% certitude.

Of course, the problem with such candor, honesty, and integrity is the inevitable semantical parsimony it invites as it may apply to colloquial usage in common conversation and applicable connotations. "Scientists" (and laypersons that have a grasp of scientific methodologies) know that a scientific "theory" is not commensurate in meaning or application with the colloquial usage of "theory", ie. "The car has recurrent starting problems you say? OK, I have a theory about that..." (which is of course, not a "theory" at all, but rather an untested hypothesis lacking/awaiting a potential fact/evidence-based conclusion). Critics of scientific "theories" are quick to employ the common misunderstanding of most folks by playing upon the ignorance of many who do not appreciate the distinctions in meanings between the usage of the same word.

ID proponent: "After all, even scientists admit that evolution is 'just a theory'!"
Uninformed guy: "Oh, is that all it is? Just a theory? Just a guess? Well, then I suppose my guess is just as good as any scientist's!"

Preying upon such ignorance is easy, and plays well enough to those who really don't want, or care, to devote any additional time or effort in understanding extremely complex findings, principles, or "proofs".

ID proponents typically utilize the logical fallacy of "Argument by (Complex) Question", akin to:
"How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?"
There is no concise, or "snappy" answer to a question rife with complexity and requisitely extended explanation. Thusly, any proffered honest and detailed answer appears to be either defensive or long-winded. If a "scientist" attempts such a reply, a subsequent "Argument from Incredulity" surely follows...
"Who can understand all that gobbledygook you're saying? I know I can't! Why can't you just admit that there's an easier explanation? What are you trying to hide/deny?"

And so, ID gains adherents in providing a "simple" answer to arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) by saying, "a higher intelligence[!]" must be the cause. Simple. Neat. No added explanation (or evidence) required. "Uniformed Guy" can go back to his daily routine without having to hash out or resolve any perceived dichotomies in his faith or perspectives on the world in which he resides. "Science is just guessing...and ID is just as good a guess as any other, so why not teach that as science too?"

Before any schools begin to teach science, they should teach students critical thinking, and how to evaluate/discern fallacy/specious argument from demonstrable fact. This might stem the ensuing tide of ID proponents...but might very well spawn a new rebellion to introduce RT ("religious thinking") into public schools...

 

[Yerda]

The article appears a little over the top. How would a few creationists in the USA significantly alter a massive international community?

Just a tad paranoid?

 

[michel]

Before any schools begin to teach science, they should teach students critical thinking, and how to evaluate/discern fallacy/specious argument from demonstrable fact. This might stem the ensuing tide of ID proponents...but might very well spawn a new rebellion to introduce RT ("religious thinking") into public schools...

I wonder at what age this ought to begin; I can forsee problems about children telling their parents to stop lying when talkind about Santa, the tooth fairy, that babies are brought by storks.............

 

[Pah]

The article appears a little over the top. How would a few creationists in the USA significantly alter a massive international community?

Just a tad paranoid?

Perhaps. But then consider those "few creationists" as a voting block holding politcial markers. Consider the "stealth" candidates 20 or so years ago that predominate some local communities. Consider that candidates to all offices now must make a statement of their faith contramanding the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. Consider that generally all "moral" causes for social justice are opposed by well funded religious groups or affiliates of religion especially to the state level.

 

[michel]

Perhaps. But then consider those "few creationists" as a voting block holding politcial markers. Consider the "stealth" candidates 20 or so years ago that predominate some local communities. Consider that candidates to all offices now must make a statement of their faith contramanding the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. Consider that generally all "moral" causes for social justice are opposed by well funded religious groups or affiliates of religion especially to the state level.

I have a remedy! Emigrate!

 

[Pah]

I have a remedy! Emigrate!

I know that was a bit tounge-in-cheek. But I do have concern for my fellow Americans. They may not be as effective as I in speaking out (knowing I have little impact on my own). I do feel that losing some freedoms for any group of fellow citizens is a direct threat of loss to my freedom.

The irony is that it is precisely freedom of religion that allows the "enemy" to operate - and I would still protect it.

 

[Darkdale]

I have a remedy! Emigrate!

excellent idea. :clap

Frankly, I'm not at all worried about Christianity in America. It's going to decline. They are going to lose power soon enough. I'm more worried about the people that will be taking their place. Anyway, if the socialists take over America, I am definitely going to try to move to Iceland, the only problem is, I'd never be able to get citizenship, so I'd have to always be getting Visa's and such. If I'm going to live under democratic socialism, I want to at least live in one with an interesting culture.

 

[s2a]

I wonder at what age this ought to begin; I can forsee problems about children telling their parents to stop lying when talkind about Santa, the tooth fairy, that babies are brought by storks.............

Heh. There's nothing wrong with promoting a few harmless childhood fantasies in early (prior to entering school) educational development. Let's face it. "Where do babies come from?" is difficult to factually explain and detail to a three-year-old (with any prospect/hope of understanding) - not to mention, potentially frightening to the child and the parent.

Besides, it's the fantasies that persist into adulthood that present the greatest ongoing challenges to critical evaluation, reason, and review...;-)

To my recollection, "experimental science" education doesn't begin until the fourth or fifth grade in most public schools. [There's some "elementary" (no pun) science that may be introduced beforehand (just basic and rudimentary facts), but these are not challenging to any sort of critical thinking.]

I should think that students in the 8-10 year-old range would be ready to abandon mythology/fantasy/folklore as they relate to Santa Claus, fairies, the Easter Bunny, and baby-bearing storks (among other "beliefs")....don't you?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Well, Pah, I must confess that I couldn't agree more with you. You'd be suprised at the special view of politics you will get through an incarceration in your local prison. Despite how "paranoid" this article may come across, It's really no suprise to me at all.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[robtex]

Well, Pah, I must confess that I couldn't agree more with you. You'd be suprised at the special view of politics you will get through an incarceration in your local prison. Despite how "paranoid" this article may come across, It's really no suprise to me at all.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

A lot of christians do feel the same way that you do about this but the frusterating part is they don't seem to openly act on it . Secular groups campaign, send emails, letters, phone calls and in some instances from small groups for policitical actions to curb the ID'sers war on science. But as most secularists are also non-theists they, (we) are viewed as outsiders who "just don't get it".

The chrisitans who accept modern science discoveries, and whom appear to be in the majority however are not outsiders. Yet they don't seem concerned about the ID invasion on science the wedge strategy (which seems really well known in Chrisitan cirlces), or the idea that others of their faith wish to eleminate science from the curriculum to appease their God.

I would love to see a christian group fomed to "clean-up their own backyard" on this issue. The idea of restructing public education into a faith based learning system should be as distrubing to Christians as it is to non-christians.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I would love to see a christian group fomed to "clean-up their own backyard" on this issue. The idea of restructing public education into a faith based learning system should be as distrubing to Christians as it is to non-christians.

While I do agree with this for the simple fact that Biblically,philosophically,and mere history shows us that forced faith never works, unfortunately being as how I am an ex-felon who can't even vote so my impact would probably be minimal at best. I guess this is my attempt at impacting what I can. I remember having a conversation with a Christian in a chatroom who told me of his ambition to turn this country into a theocracy to which I asked him how if it didn't work with Isreal (God's chosen people) in the Old Testament, what made him think it would work now? I don't remember his response, so it mut not have been a good one. On top of that, all this Christian interest in politics is very distracting when it comes to what the Bible truly calls Christians to get involved with. I don't remember a verse telling believers to do what they can to take over their government.

Now at the same time I would like to qualify that I do not wish our schools to be anti-faith based if that is possible(which I have my doubts about). I believe that the ACLU has gotten outright rediculous to the point of borderline communism when it comes to dealing with religious issues in schools. Up until High School, there wasn't an issue over Christmas trees during the holiday season which is really kind of funny when you consider what Christmas has truly become in this country. Now if somebody tried to put one up in a school, they would be looked down on as if they were some sort of felon committing criminal. So while I would love this issue to find a happy peacefull medium, I'm probably better off just spitting in the wind.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[ChrisP]

While I do agree with this for the simple fact that Biblically,philosophically,and mere history shows us that forced faith never works, unfortunately being as how I am an ex-felon who can't even vote so my impact would probably be minimal at best. I guess this is my attempt at impacting what I can. I remember having a conversation with a Christian in a chatroom who told me of his ambition to turn this country into a theocracy to which I asked him how if it didn't work with Isreal (God's chosen people) in the Old Testament, what made him think it would work now? I don't remember his response, so it mut not have been a good one. On top of that, all this Christian interest in politics is very distracting when it comes to what the Bible truly calls Christians to get involved with. I don't remember a verse telling believers to do what they can to take over their government.

Now at the same time I would like to qualify that I do not wish our schools to be anti-faith based if that is possible(which I have my doubts about). I believe that the ACLU has gotten outright rediculous to the point of borderline communism when it comes to dealing with religious issues in schools. Up until High School, there wasn't an issue over Christmas trees during the holiday season which is really kind of funny when you consider what Christmas has truly become in this country. Now if somebody tried to put one up in a school, they would be looked down on as if they were some sort of felon committing criminal. So while I would love this issue to find a happy peacefull medium, I'm probably better off just spitting in the wind.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Your right SDG, balance is always difficult to achieve, because a littttle too much and you go over the edge!

I think you'd be more likely to win a wrestling match with a gorrilla than achieve middle ground on this one.

For some strange reason Religion polarises people

 

[robtex]

Your right SDG, balance is always difficult to achieve, because a littttle too much and you go over the edge!
I think you'd be more likely to win a wrestling match with a gorrilla than achieve middle ground on this one.
For some strange reason Religion polarises people

It is not about religion vs religion or theists vs non-theists. It is about teaching faith as fact and eliminating modern discoveries because they conflicte with faith-based systems. It is a mockery of the education system to turn publicly funded schools into "bible studies" which is the desired end-result by the ID camp.

There is nothing to balance in this case. If the ID' s want to construct faith-based systems in their churches or own private homes so be it but to promote the concealment of the discoveries of man that don't fit within their faith and substitute it with unsubstanciated faith presented as fact against the will of the public is quite another.

It is like watching the Galileo trials all over with the new victims being children who are taught ID. When I was in college my college roommate had a story that applies to this. When he was growing-up he went on road trips with his famliy. His older brother, a prankster, would point to the cows in the field and say "see the horses?" to my roommate.

Years went by of this game his, parents unaware, until one day in school he learned that the "horses" he thought he saw were in fact cows. At the first presentation of this idea by his teacher he flat out rejected the notion because he took his brother's word over the teachers. It wasn't until a few weeks later that he brother came clean on the cow/horse issue. His brother who played that joke years ago had forgotten all about it.

ID is kinda like that joke except the joke is on children who are being preyed upon as future religious recruits by presenting the ID agenda through ID without them knowing what is happening. And suppressing modern secular data that they feel weakens their religions position.

It is one thing to let children explore various faiths and choose one on their own but quite another to suppress known data about our existance and substitute upsubstanciated faith, faith until such day it is substanciated, in its place.

What I find equally distrubing though is the apathy in the theist camp which was the reason for my last post. Most theist who accept the evidencable theories of evolution and other modern sciences have thus been completely ambivlant to ID's war on science while non-theists have on the average become quite disturbed.

 

[s2a]

...all this Christian interest in politics is very distracting when it comes to what the Bible truly calls Christians to get involved with. I don't remember a verse telling believers to do what they can to take over their government.

Me neither. ;-)

Now at the same time I would like to qualify that I do not wish our schools to be anti-faith based if that is possible(which I have my doubts about).

As a secular non-theist (an atheist, in fact), it is my sentiment that US public schools aren't "anti-faith", so much as purposefully "faith-ambivalent".

Despite all of the religious right's propaganda to the contrary, in fact:
Individualized silent prayer is not prohibited at any time, by anybody.
Expression/exercize of religious faith is not prohibited outside of classroom time.
Groupings of like-minded religious adherents in practice/expression of their faith is permitted after classroom time.
Personal ownership (and retention) of religious texts is not prohibited.

How could "government" ever "kick God out of the classroom", when religious faith is resident in the hearts and minds of those that choose to believe?

I believe that the ACLU has gotten outright rediculous to the point of borderline communism when it comes to dealing with religious issues in schools.

If certain religious groups weren't persistently trying to challenge established constitutional precedent with overtly interruptive displays of piety, or enacting intentionally provocative/defiant unconstitutional legislation/policies...the ACLU might find itself pondering the significance of it's own accumilated navel lint...instead of resisting special-interest-groups' orchestrated attempts to defy established/precedented constitutional law.

Up until High School, there wasn't an issue over Christmas trees during the holiday season which is really kind of funny when you consider what Christmas has truly become in this country. Now if somebody tried to put one up in a school, they would be looked down on as if they were some sort of felon committing criminal.

From a personalized perspective, I take no issue with display of Chrisitmas trees, as they are (for all intents and purposes) secular observances of "borrowed" (and specifically, Christian co-opted) pagan rituals (all due folklore deference lent to the esteemed Saint Boniface besides...).

"Christmas" is observed (in one fashion or another) in most parts of the world today as a secularly seasonal observance/recognition of charity, compassion, hope, and (our better) humanity. Christmas celebrations are huge in Japan, and observed in the Middle East, Asia, India, Africa...etc., where Christian observances are secondary at best, or non-existent but by some infentesimal minority practicing representation.

Heck, I'm an atheist, but both enjoy and celebrate a secular Chrisitmas with my family.

However, veritably religious icons like a creche, cross, or "Baby Jesus" do promote an undeniable position of sectarian religious beliefs...and have no place in a pluralistically secular environment subject to imposition of governmentally mandated/sanctioned/supported sectarian favor, bias, or prejudice.

Virtually no one objects to "Fall/Thanksgiving" displays in public schools because they neither favor nor prejudice any religious belief (or lack thereof). Everyone may express their general gratitude for good fortune in their own way, absent or inclusive of any religious beliefs.

It's not "communistic" to prohibit governmentally-endorsed religious icons/observances...

...in fact, it's the most patriotically "American" thing one can do...