Although we never asked them to, the far right American Family Association frequently sends us email asking us to support them in their radical Republican partisan causes. The people at the American Family Association have given us the username “Little Jonnie Atheist Fag”. Isn’t that a sweet, pro-family atttude?
Well, today, the sweet and kind message sent to us by the American Family Association had to do with the right wing’s effort to mix religion into public school science classes. The American Family Association said it was taking a poll, a poll about intelligent design theology, that religious doctrine that says that life could not have possibly arisen from natural causes, because life is just too complex for anyone but a super-advanced race of alien creatures or supernatural spirits to create. Strangely, the supporters of intelligent design theology are almost all right wing Christians like the people at the American Family Association, using intelligent design theology as a platform from which to attack education in the proper techniques and ideas of professional science.
The American Family Association is hoping to use this poll to serve as a piece of propaganda to argue that the American people just hate the rigorous standards of professional scientists. They want to teach the neo-Creationist theology right along with evolution science, even though intelligent design theology isn’t even a scientific concept. They’re only emailing that poll link to Christian fundamentalists who are members of the American Family Association, so they’re loading the poll up with a huge right wing bias. It’s really telling that, in their efforts to push their fundamentalist Christian ideology on public school students, the American Family Association is using an unscientific poll on the decidedly unscientific intelligent design theology.
They want to talk about intelligent design? Fine. It would be intelligent for a poll to be scientifically designed, so that it would be plausible when presented to the public. The concept of biological evolution is itself intelligently designed, taking simple, verifiable ideas and following the logical implications of those ideas to their ends: Showing how the complexity of life is a quite natural outgrowth of basic chemical processes.
So far, that unscientific American Family Association poll is registering nearly 100% approval for forcing the Christian fundamentalist religious ideology of intelligent design on public school children. I say we who don’t follow the marching orders of the religious right take that poll too, and give the propagandists at the American Family Association a little bit of a surprise.
Here’s the link to that intelligent design theology poll: http://www.afa.net/petitions/intelligentdesign/TakeSurvey.asp – Have fun!
“Intelligent design is a sophisticated theory now being argued out in the nation’s top universities. And though this idea assumes existence must have some higher component, it is not religious doctrine under the 1986 Supreme Court definition. Intelligent-design thinking does not propound any specific faith or even say that the higher power is divine. It simply holds that there must be an unseen intellect imbedded in the cosmos.
The intelligent design theory may or may not be correct, but it’s a rich, absorbing hypothesis — the sort of thing that is fascinating to debate, and might get students excited about biology class to boot. But most kids won’t know the idea unless they are taught it, and in the aftermath of the Kansas votes, pro-evolution dogma continues to suggest that any alternative to natural selection must be kept quiet.”
Your working against the very ideas you say your fighting for. I would beg to differ…
It really comes down to where ID ‘theory’ is being taught. If it is studied in a philosophy class, in the proper context, then that is encouragable. It cannot, however, be taught in a science class, though, since it is not science.
and by the way, afa is supposed to be a non-profit organisation. is it just me or do i see a very politically active organisation in their website?
First of all, where did you cut and paste that from?
We’d have to look at the specific wording of the 1986 Supreme Court definition here, but even then we’d need to ask a lot of questions before we accept this as science.
Are we really supposed to believe that this is a brand new science that has recently developed a brand new theory of an “intelligent” “higher power” that is “embedded in the cosmos?”
There’s more than a hint of religion here, isn’t there? But let’s go further.
If this were a science, we would want to ask a few questions:
How intelligent is this thing?
How powerful?
How do we know we aren’t dealing with a multiplicity of things–one or more being the “designer,” and one or more being the “power”–maybe cosmic teams of architects and engineers, with no clear leader (squabbling among themselves over the platypus…)?
Intelligent design doesn’t even bother to ask these questions. Why? Well, perhaps because it’s a foregone conclusion: by “intelligent higher power embedded in the cosmos,” we mean God, right? God, as we all know, is a single, omniscient, omnipotent being…
So is it religion, or science? We can see how this is going, but let’s indulge the intelligent designists one more time.
If this is science, there must be a testable hypothesis. How do we test intelligent design? How do we set up an experiment? What’s our control group?
So we’re not really using the scientific method here. There’s no testable hypothesis, no experimentation, nothing.
Now add that all up, then consider this: most of the people promoting intelligent design “just happen” to have strong non-scientific reasons for believing in precisely the conclusions intelligent design claims to reach scientifically. Interesting…
Coincidence? I doubt it.
Its cool the way we now have links to related topics.
Well done Irregular times…
Actually, if you look into the current and past debate of ID and look at such debates as William L Craig v Antony Flew you will see that this idea fits in several areas. The idea od ID is in fact in many ways a science. It is also a study of mathmatics and probability. This debate is being held in many philosophy departments and on major campuses but in order to do this justice why not offer it as its own class? A class simply put, ID v Evolution. This would give the students a chance to study for themselves both sides at the same time and come to their own decision. Also, the deabte isnt over any single line of theology. The debate is over whether it is rational to believe in any God. After you have figured that out then the next step is to figure out if there is a God can you know that God and if you can does any of the religions paint a true picture of that God…
Intelligent design is completely rejected by the scientific community. It does not have the structure of a scientific idea. It is, like Creationism, a pseudoscience that starts with a religious assumption and then tries to find facts to justify that religious assumption.
This article is quite right in describing intelligent design as a theology and not a science.
It is no accident that intelligent design enthusiasts are almost all fundamentalist Christians. Do you know that the top intelligent design proponents most quoted by right wingers actually met with officials from the Catholic Church in order to plan how the religious ideas of intelligent design could be promoted?
That’s sure not how real science works. Intelligent design is plainly fake science.
Well, I don’t think that intelligent design is a particularly fun topic to debate.
Evolution and REAL Science is, and if people aren’t interested in that without religion added in then, let’s face it, they probably wouldn’t enjoy a career as scientists.
I have nothing against the idea of gods being taught in public schools, if it’s in a philosophy or religious education class as OhOhOhScience points out.
It does not, however, belong with in a science class. If people want to try to fit them together, or choose one over another, that’s their business, not the government’s.
Intelligent design theology is not up for debate – that’s the point. It’s a theology, not a scientific theory. It’s pure speculation with no evidence, and no possible evidence could ever prove it. It’s CAUSE I SAY SO SCIENCE.
There is no debate on intelligent design except for the debate about why so many Christian fundamentalists are pushing in union to force their religious beliefs into official government recognition – to become America’s ayatollahs. That’s really what’s under debate when we discuss intelligent design.
On the contrary, I find intelligent design very interesting.
Like other religious ideas, it tells us a lot about the people who believe it.
That paragraph Hoosier cut and pasted is very interesting for a number of reasons. For instance, note the reference to “pro-evolution dogma.” They’re depicting biological science as a repressive religion! So they’re actually fighting religious dogma, get it? Classic neo-conservative co-opting of radical left-wing rhetoric.
Fascinating. Of course, this can only be convincing in a culture that is profoundly scientifically illiterate, where most people don’t really understand what science and the scientific method are.
To millions of Americans, there is no difference between science and religion–both are just someone in a position of authority telling you to believe something. When push comes to shove, I’m sure they’re just as ignorant of the theological process and Biblical philology as they are of the fossil record and the science of genetics.
No, to them, “truth” is just a piece of product like any other. They’re not participants in the search for truth, it just comes to them fully packaged and ready to consume. If they like it, they buy it.
That’s the United States, and the fact that the debate has gotten as much traction as it has gives us a very interesting window on some problems in our educational system, and problems in American society at large.
It’s a troubling issue, but interesting and very revealing.
Intelligent design by some omniscient, omnipotent entity. One of my dotty aunts was hocking me with the bible again last night (she beleives every word is true) and was giving me the what-if-you’re-wrong routine. I’d been waiting for her, though. Found the part where god tries to kill Moses for some reason and…MISSES! How does such a super entity flub a relatively simple job job with an easy target? She slapped my face for blasphemy, blared at me for making fun of her religeon and “trying to undermine her faith”. Sometimes it’s too easy…
Hare and Nougat, you’ve got what they’re really after nailed down. They don’t WANT a debate. This is a step along the way to STOP debate.
I went to the afa site to vote,via Mothering.com. At that point it was 96% for the dark side and 4% for reason. Does anyone know how the poll stands now?
Sarge, once again, you’re right! Debate=asking questions=doubting those in authority=TREASON!!!
Non-debate=aquiescence=toeing the party line=”political correctness”=”Good old-time Amurikun Values”.
Guess that tells us which side WE’RE on, huh? Been listening to a little vintage Jefferson Airplane today:
“We are all outlaws in the eyes of america…
In order to survive we steal, cheat, lie, forge, fuck, hide, and deal…
We are obscene,lawless, hideous, dangerous, dirty, violent…and young…”
Anyone know the next line? Anyone remember? Anyone even CARE???
Good one Mike, Blows Against the Empire is another great album by them.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Debate is a formalized system of (usually) logical argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences.
Has nothing to do with automatically doubting those in authority. As far as political correctness goes, it only applies to the left when being questioned. Moderates and conservatives are hypocriticaly not afforded PC from the left.
Thanks to Sarge & Mike for your intelligent comments about what Republican politics has turned into – a slur against democracy. Seems the GOP just can’t take the presence of real education, so they have to attack science with corporate PR committees and fundamentalist radical groups like the American Family Association. The Republicans these days will stop at nothing to stifle free and open education. Stopping debate is just one item on their dangerous agenda.
Gee, Hoosie. I guess you’re right. I suppose “debate” means automatically TRUSTING those in authority, and allowing them to set the parameters of a pseudo-debate tempest in a teapot.
Maybe you didn’t hear, Hoosie, but the name of the war on terror has shifted. It’s now the war against radical fundamentalist religious ideology.
The American Family Association is an enemy of civilization. They are trying to undermine the Enlightenment value of reason that democratic society is based on, and plunge us back into the Dark Ages.
They are taking advantage of under-educated people who mistake their radical ideology for genuine faith, and recruiting them in their attack on civilization.
I happen to believe in fighting them non-violently. But the enemies of civilization must be fought.
Why don’t you step up and defend civilization, Hoosie?
Well, H.T., the Intelligent Design bits last step is the one that brings it down: where does the “designer” come from? The logic kind of crumbles when you get to the “designer” and “materials”. The very people who tell me that “this couldn’t come from nothing”, say as well that it had to be “made” just wave their hand and dismiss the alleged last (or first) step (depending on the direction you’re working from). I am told, with grave earnestness, that this was “made” by an entity which “always was” out of nothing. Many of the young people I deal with have a very fundy background, and they feel that fossils are things this entity made as well to show the foolishness of mankind. They “know” because of their bible or their preacher says so.
Years ago I was stationed in Alabama, and my five year old son found one of the nicest arrow heads I’ve ever seen. We went home to Virginia on leave, and one of my father’s neighbors (he was an instructor at a local college, anthropology) saw it, and as he knew I knap flint (make projectile points, tools, gun flints,etc) asked me to demonstrate this for one of his classes. He had all the fixin’s, just not the skill.He also asked me to bring my son and the arrowhead. I made some points and a scraper, and he introduced my son, and had him talk about the arrowhead he’d found. He elicited that my son knew that the arrow was made by certain proceedures, probably by Creek indians, and was made and left a long time ago…that the indians had come the night before and left it for him to find. After the laughter died down, the prof told the class that he found this thesis remarkably well thought out: he knew who made the object and how it was made, even knew real indians. His thesis was also based on the knowledge that good things were left at night by the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and santa claus, and what’s a long time to a small child? He expressed confidence that my son’s thesis would change as he was able to gather and compare empirical data, and so it has. There is empirical data to support evolution in at least some understandable form. Creation? I wonder why many of the creationists I know regard certain sci-fi stories as “blasphemous” which have the earth as seeded by an advanced race? Nope, couldn’t be that, pick the door which has the being that “always was” who mkes something out of nothing.
Oh, yeah, Hoosier, it has been made painfully clear to me throughout my life that doubting authority is kind of important. I’m alive today because I have ALWAYS walked at a slant to what the powers that is have said. From childhood, parents, teachers, older kids, up to politicians and the Sir class of today, if they think that something is a good idea for you to do, you better beleive that they’ll gain more than you will, and you’ll probably lose. Y’all watch yourselves, hear?
Sarge,
Yeah, I’ve noticed that flaw with the “intelligent design” theory too.
Infinite amount of space and time would not only offer the chance for this Earth once but an infinite amount of times.
But to suggest that an intelligent, omnipotent and omni-everything else being could come from nowhere easier than atoms?
Also highly ironic is how many of the same people who scoff at how evolution suggests that “humans came from monkeys” have nothing against the suggestion that humans came from dirt (and within a day).
Intelligent design? What does that mean? No mixing of magentas with oranges in the living room?
Come on, really. It’s plain to all neutral observers (non-fundamentalist-flat-Earthers) that Intelligent Design is just Creationism warmed over.
Did a Google search for Intelligent Design, and guess what? Almost every web site out there that promotes this intelligent design nonsense is Christian, and promotes Creationism too.
Sorry, I don’t fall for snake oil.
On a side note, the fight over inserting intelligent design into science classes has just had its opening salvo here in South Carolina. I guess it was just a matter of time. Thanks for all of the comments, they give me a lot of ammunition to fight with.
Punker, you have, it seems boiled it down to its essence. Had a girl freind in my younger days who discribed such things as “a pound of smoke.” Also a pretty good discription.