Do you remember the ACME Label Maker? Are you still increasingly worried about that coming theocracy? Do you hear the barbarians at the gate? Thanks to the new Warning Label Generator, you no longer have to stand by and watch as your children's minds become corrupted.
Check a few boxes, craft some alarmist rhetoric, and you're ready to warn others that the sky is falling:
With the Warning Label Generator, you too can say, "I'm doing my part!"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:09 am
Hey everybody,
although I'm new to this blog please allow me a few comments on this post.
Yes, I am.
No, I am not. One does not have to mistake theocrats for barbarians in order to be afraid of them.
- Do I think that our childrens' minds could become corrupted?
Yes, I do. Making a clear distinction between religion and science, while disrespecting neither, is what liberated mankind from the dark ages.
- Do I think that the sky is falling?
No, I don't. But I am afraid that a theocracy would keep me from explaining why it won't.
- Will I put the warning sign up?
No, I won't. Although what it says is right I don't need to make a fool of myself.
Comment by surfguard — November 22, 2005 @ 7:09 am
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:32 am
Surf,
I'm curious. Do you have any evidence that a theocracy is just around the corner?
Comment by MikeGene — November 22, 2005 @ 8:32 am
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:44 am
I didn't say it was just around the corner, I said I'm increasingly worried. And although I still sleep well this is no reason to ignore approaches like ID that try to blur the borderline between science and religion beyond necessity.
Being a physicist and a protestant Christian I know very well that there are questions that have not been answered yet, that probably cannot be answered, that today and possibly tomorrow cannot even be asked. But this makes me ask more questions, not less. And I am afraid of movements that try to stop asking questions too early because that would, as a last consequence, lead to a theocracy.
Comment by surfguard — November 22, 2005 @ 10:44 am
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Hi Surfguard,
You said that the warning label, "Intelligent design is a threat to science and democracy", was right. In what way does intelligent design pose a threat?
Comment by Krauze — November 22, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Let me offer, being part of a very conservative circle of Evangelical Christians, a theocracy is not popular even in my circles.
I think the widespread scare tactics by Barbara Forest and company have been very effective as a public relations campaign to smear ID.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 22, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Surfguard's comments are judiciously made, but I have to disagree.
First, barring some series of catastrophes that changes the shape of our society completely the United States will never be a theocracy according to anything like the historic definition of that word. Religiously, we are just too diverse. The usual suspects, evangelical Christians, are too diverse even among themselves for such a thing to take place which the vast majority of them don't want either. Calvinists and Pentecostals will never form some coalition gov't, even to oppress atheists and New Agers. Ain't gonna happen; as anyone who's spent time among those of either subcultures knows. America is a very religious nation, and it would even be fair to call it a Christian nation, but it's also Protestant to its very bones, and as long as that's the case a theocracy won't come to pass.
Maybe I'm being unfair, and Surfguard is talking about the emergence of some sort of subtle but oppressive consensus: like the kind that prevents Republican graduate students in most English departments from mentioning that fact at faculty parties. But there is hardly a consensus for ID anywhere in the educational establishment, and while we can argue about whether there really is bias in academia against ID there certainly isn't a bias those that confess a vigorous belief in Bio 101 textbook Darwinism.
As to ID as a movement stopping Surfguard as a scientist from asking questions, or stopping him from asking them too early I'm curious to know just how this would work. Are you concerned that activists connected to ID would get ahold of the reigns of academic power and deny grant money to a theorist whose work might provide a more mundane explanation for ID evidence? And just how would ID, not as a belief, but a conclusion from the evidence stop you or any other scientist from asking questions?
I hope I'm not being dismissive I'm just wondering if you could be a bit more specific in what you're concerned might happen.
Comment by roy w. — November 22, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I appreciate people being fearful, but up until now I did not take it seriously as it seems there are far more things which are legitimate threats to a well society.
Even if we conclude ID is true or even "God Did It", why should research stop. The pioneers of science, like Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Dalton, Maxwell, Mendel, etc. fully believed, "God Did It". It did nothing to slow the progress of science.
Rather, it was in cultures where the design paradigm was weak that science did not emerge….
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 22, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Hi Krauze,
If we agree that ID is a step into the direction of a theocracy, the threat to science and democracy is obvious.
Since I assume that we do not agree: Both science and democracy are about questioning and arguing. ID is about believing as it alledges that some things are not explicable and one could only assume (i.e. believe in) a designer. Because believing is the opposite of questioning and arguing, ID is a threat to science and democracy.
Comment by surfguard — November 22, 2005 @ 1:29 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Surfguard said:
I don't see any "obvious threat" to science or to democracy coming from a teleological design inference in biology. I was taught in grade school that the universe was eternal and maintained in a "Steady State," that human embryos have gills, and that giraffes have long necks because they stretched to reach leaves high on trees. Those erroneous scientific ideas - enshrined in our textbooks and endorsed by 'scientific consensus' - didn't prevent me from later learning about the Big Bang or RM-NS. But it did teach me how foolish it would be to invest faith in anything science happens to endorse today.
And nothing I was taught about religion in my life, about science in my schooling, or anything I learned for myself through the years has prevented me from exercising my right to vote. Since 2000, however, I am no longer confident that my vote counts. I see THAT as a real life "obvious threat" to democracy, and the purveyors to be a real life threat to science (which they ignore with impunity whenever it clashes with their short-sighted policies). That has nothing at all to do with intelligent design, unless you consider the current cabal to be "intelligent." I don't.
ID doesn't steal elections or suspend habeas corpus or torture people to death with power tools in secret gulags. It doesn't melt the skin off children like white phosphorus does. It doesn't create superbugs designed for genocide, and it sure doesn't vaporize millions indiscriminately at the push of a button. If you truly fear for the future of freedom and science, you could choose better targets.
Comment by Joy — November 22, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:30 pm
surfguard:
ID is about believing as it alledges that some things are not explicable and one could only assume (i.e. believe in) a designer.
No, ID says that some things are best explained by intelligent causation. IOW we know what intelligent agencies can do and we also know what unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes are capable of.
surfguard:
Because believing is the opposite of questioning and arguing, ID is a threat to science and democracy.
It has beed readily demonstrated that ID gives great cause for debate & discussion. Once design is detected there is so much more to do to understand that design. Then we will want to know more- about the designer(s), the implementaion process and that will drive us to seek the answers.
But anyway please take a few minutes to read the essay(s) at the following link (the first two posts will explain ID as it really is):
Why ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — November 22, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:58 pm
@ roy w:
I don't think that in order to support my argument I'd have to go into the details of the formation of a theocratic government (if there is such a thing at all). I'd have to repeat myself: Theocracy is not around the corner but that's no reason to ignore concepts that tend towards it. And I'm certainly not talking about a thought police. I'm talking about theocracies creating an atmosphere that makes it impossible to discuss (as opposed to: decide once and for all) certain subjects. Think about discussing abortion in the Vatican. Or in Utah.
@ Joy:
Please take a look at states that today are ruled by some sort of theocracy, be it Islamic fundamentalist states or others (wouldn't know any apart from the Vatican from the top of my head), and ask yourself how strong democracy is in these countries.
@ Joe G:
When you say ID was the best explanation for some issues then what is your definition of "best" - if not "easiest" as in "most convenient"
@ all:
Please note that I'm not afraid of a world theocracy replacing the United Nations next week. Or next year, or next decade. I only felt the urge to oppose Krauzes assumption that being worried because of ID would be a ridiculous thing or imply a slight form of paranoia.
Comment by surfguard — November 22, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:47 pm
There's perhaps a bigger qn here; are we unwilling to seek the truth because of some projected fear of what some people might try and achieve with it? Surely the first point of call has to be has ID got merit? If we are afraid to even find out I think we're living in an even scarier world than what some sort of christian theocracy might bring about!
Two final thoughts for you surfguard, before Darwin, teleoolgy was accepted but this was not heading us toward a theocracy, Darwin did not arrive to save us from this eventuality
Also consider the situation we are in under methadological naturalism. Isn't it a type of materialist theocracy, as teleolgical concepts are ruled out of court before we're even allowed to see if they have legs?
Comment by willo — November 22, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Surf:
My mistake. Sorry.
ID itself does not blur the distinction between science and religion and I can say this because it's quite likely I have a better grasp on this concept than you do. What you seem to be worried about are people who would use ID to advance their own agenda of blurring the distinction between science and religion. People were very worried about them in the 80s too. In fact, I have a feeling that this is something someone can always be "increasingly worried" about for decades to come. Yet I don't see anything coming of this except people being "worried." Thus, it would be more interesting to focus on the implications of all this worry.
That's odd. From my years of experience arguing with hundreds of ID critics, I have developed the distinct impression that a large number of them are uncomfortable asking certain questions. Shall I be more specific?
Comment by MikeGene — November 22, 2005 @ 5:58 pm
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:02 pm
surfguard:
When you say ID was the best explanation for some issues then what is your definition of "best" "“ if not "easiest" as in "most convenient"?
Was it the "easiest" or "most convenient" to say that Stonehenge was the result intelligent agencies? IOW when archaeologists determine something they are observing is an artifact did they take the "easy" or "most convenient" explanation? Or was that explanation the best explanation because the data said it was the explanation?
When a fire investigator says a certain fire was an arson, was that investigator taking the "easy" or "most convenient" way out? Or was the investigator just following the data to where it led?
surfguard:
I'm talking about theocracies creating an atmosphere that makes it impossible to discuss (as opposed to: decide once and for all) certain subjects.
Take a look around. That is what is happening in the USA with respect to ID. Discuss ID and you are demonized….
Comment by Joe G — November 22, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:00 pm
surfgard said:
Surely you don't expect anyone here to buy this illogic, do you? The Islamic nations are primarily caliphates, monarchies and dictatorships. It has been thus (with an ever-changing cast of characters, borders and titles) for ~1500 years. Democracy is a historical newcomer, and the US isn't one. We have a representational republic. We are ruled by constitutional law, not by religious tribunal.
Of course, there is the possibility that a leader could abolish the republic by convincing the people to voluntarily surrender their liberty and protections. The power of the Darkside is alluring. To accomplish this all such a leader need do is distract the citizenry with their own fears. They'll never notice what they've lost until it's too late.
It's not ID you fear, it's how others may interpret design to their religious beliefs. That's a phobia you will have to live with, because you have no power to shape the beliefs of others.
Comment by Joy — November 23, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 3:50 am
Joe G said:
And you don't see a connection here, when all democratic states turned their back on theocratic concepts? And btw: You are indirectly making a distinction here between a state religion and the (secular) form of the government. This is a distinction that in a theocratic state doesn't exist by definition. (OK, I know, you didn't say "theocratic" first, I did. Well to be more precise: Krauze alleged that ID opponents were afraid of a theocracy and I was tempted to take this serious for a moment and say that in the far, far future of this discussion that's really what I fear.)
MikeGene said:
No, I'm sorry but you mistake me. I am afraid that ID itself pushes the border beyond which one cannot answer any more questions. And it even demands that beyond this border there shouldn't be any questions asked (the design-the-designer issue, you probably guessed already). In this concept lies a potential for exploitation that you cannot simply close your eyes before.
I think what you're about to say know is something like "but if ID is a matter of fact then I'd need to talk about it even if it can be exploited". Well, my stance on this is: If you'd really try to approach ID like any science does approach any idea then you'd *have* to ask who the designer is. If you don't, that's not science for me, sorry, it's just claiming rainbows are painted by angels and then not ask about the angels. Can't be proven, can't be disproved. Can only be exploited to make children paint nice pictures
Comment by surfguard — November 24, 2005 @ 3:50 am
November 24th, 2005 at 3:52 am
Sorry about confusing a few HTML tags here. I hope you can figure out what I meant.
Comment by surfguard — November 24, 2005 @ 3:52 am
November 24th, 2005 at 4:08 am
Was it the "easiest" or "most convenient" to say that Stonehenge was the result intelligent agencies?
surfguard:
Which would explain exactly what?
It would be a start in explaining its existence. That is what science is about, understanding what it is we are observing.
surfguard:
a) You probably didn't mean to say "Stonehenge", you meant to say"a watch".
I said what I meant. What's your point?
surfguard:
b) Don't you think there's a notable difference between Stonehenge and a whale swimming in the ocean?
Yes I do. What's your point?
surfguard:
c) Taking your argument serious I'd have to assume that you believe each rainbow is handpainted by an angel some sort of helping intelligence.
That would be taking my argument to some imbecilic extreme. An extereme that has nothing to do with what I posted. The conditions on Earth are quite capable of producing rainbows. And The Privileged Planet explains why the scientific data points to those as being the result of an intelligent agency.
surfguard:
Let's take each other serious and not insinuate one of us would deny what we both can agree on, e.g. that Stonehenge was made by men.
We can only come to that inference because of our knowledge. Also it is irrelevant to what I was responding to.
The best explanation is the one which best explains the data. If the data points to intentional design then to not follow the data would be a foolish thing to do.
Comment by Joe G — November 24, 2005 @ 4:08 am
November 24th, 2005 at 4:14 am
surfguard:
If you'd really try to approach ID like any science does approach any idea then you'd have to ask who the designer is.
That is like saying the theory of evolution isn't science because it doesn't say anything about how life originated. That is IF you want to hold each to a similar standard.
However I digress. Wghat you say is exactly why ID is science- because it forces us to ask those questions. When we ask questions generally we want answers. In this case the only possible way to get any answers of that type is by studying the design!
ID can be falsified. If you had read the essay I linked to above you would have known that. I suggest you take the time and read it, along with the following from MikeGene:
The Designer's identity
Comment by Joe G — November 24, 2005 @ 4:14 am
November 24th, 2005 at 5:57 am
That we don't need to go through the obviously flawed watchmaker argument: The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion. It just makes the other look stupid. ("Would you say Stonehenge wasn't made by man? See!" See what?)
That you cannot compare an arrangement of stones to a living being and hence your Stonehenge comparision completely misses every point.
I know. I'd never think that you'd actually be of this opinion. I just demonstrated that it is so easy to take arguments to an imbecilic extreme that we shouldn't do it either way round: You don't say Stonehenge, I don't say rainbow.
Evolution doesn't say how life originated? Excuse me but you can't mean that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
I will read it. Although even as I consider myself open-minded I'm not just as sure as you are that it will convince me.
Comment by surfguard — November 24, 2005 @ 5:57 am
November 24th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Surf:
I suppose it depends on whether one is more interested in philosophy or history. Here.
Thus, your fear lies within your imagination. I focus on the real world.
As for the basis of your fear, there is a potential for exploitation in many things. Darwin's theory, for example, has a history of being exploited by eugenicists. Should we thus shut down all inquiry into Darwinism?
Says who? Science has no expertise on such matters, as can be seen by the lack of peer-reviewed papers on this topic. What you have done is express your own personal preference for the designer-centric approach, an approach that comes with its own set of problems. It's okay if this is how you personally prefer things to be, but why expect others to think as you do? Do you have experience and knowledge acquired from years of trying to ID seriously? Or do you speak from a position of ignorance on such matters, reacting reflexively to what others have told you?
Yes, that's how it is for you. You have your own ideas about how an ID investigation should be run, although you probably have no experience running such an investigation. And while you complain about questions that "shouldn't be asked," in reality, you are the one telling us not to ask certain questions. Why? Because you have this mushy, vague fear about a potential (i.e, imaginary) reality. A fear of undetectable threats. From this mushy paranoia about theocracies and ignorance about ID, you seek to censor our ideas. It's our talking about this subject that scares you. You'd like to see it all stop, right?
Comment by MikeGene — November 24, 2005 @ 10:46 am
November 24th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Just for clarification, Joe was doing what is called reductio ad absurdum. This method does take you seriously in that it assumes you will agree it is empirically valid to note "that Stonehenge was made by men," showing that its contrary is implied by your own position. Otherwise, as one of our bloggers has pointed out, it becomes reductio ad conclusion.
Comment by matt_nadler — November 24, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
November 24th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
MikeGene:
I'm telling you the exact opposite. This whole thread long I'm telling you to ask MORE questions and of my being afraid of a culture in which certain questions may _not_ be asked.
I'm far from "censoring" anyone. But not being censored does not imply that ID needs to be taught in schools, to open a new battlefield. Being allowed to speak freely does not give ID advocates a right (albeit a chance) to be in the schoolbook.
Don't reduce me on the aspect of fear. It was a subject that Krauze brought up and that I took seriously for a moment to demonstrate that it's not completely out of the question.
matt_nadler:
Are you trying to say that an ID critic must consequently think Stonehenge was _not_ made by man? Or are you just trying to obscure my position with a little Latin?
Comment by surfguard — November 24, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Surf:
Well, that's not how you come across. You come across as someone who is afraid that by asking the questions ID asks, we'll create the potential for a theocracy to fall into place. It looks like you are trying to use fear as a tactic to silence other people from talking about this issue.
I never said anything about ID being placed in schools. See how you rely on your stereotypes? So you come to the table with fear-mongering and stereotypes. And I suppose you'll get mad at me if I don't view you as an objective, enlightened, scientist, right?
Really? You told us you were increasingly worried about a coming theocracy and agreed with the statement on Krauze's sticker. Your fear defines you. Or do you want to retract those comments?
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 12:18 am
November 25th, 2005 at 3:04 am
Surfguard, you said, "Let's take each other serious and not insinuate one of us would deny what we both can agree on, e.g. that Stonehenge was made by men."
I only pointed out that Joe was actually doing the opposite. He wasn't insinuating that you would deny that Stonehenge was made or made by men, but rather insinuating that the logic of your position precludes an empirical inference that it was made at all, and that yet you wouldn't deny what you could agree on, that it was made by men. That's the position insinuated by the question.
Reductio. Ad. Absurdim.
Comment by matt_nadler — November 25, 2005 @ 3:04 am
November 25th, 2005 at 3:05 am
or absurdum. whatevs.
Comment by matt_nadler — November 25, 2005 @ 3:05 am
November 25th, 2005 at 3:17 am
Wouldn't it be easier to obscure your position with a tall Latin?
(I know, puns are the lowest form of humor. We can't all be Krauze and Mike Gene.)
Comment by matt_nadler — November 25, 2005 @ 3:17 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:04 am
MikeGene:
Well, that's just a silly thing to say, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Let's talk about this again in a while, if I possibly posted a few more comments on other topics. The topic of this post was being worried, and I tried to stick to it. I don't see how that would give anybody a broad enough basis to judge what "defines" me.
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 11:04 am
November 25th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Sorry Surfguard, but I don't think it is silly - I think it is more accurate than you may realize. You have told us you are increasingly worried about a coming theocracy because of ID. You said that you agreed that ID is a threat to science and democracy. Are you now going to try to convince me that by putting on the white lab coat and acting oh so intellectual that you cease to be a human being? You have told us you are afraid and thus your fear defines you. But don't experience too much cognitive dissonance on this, as the point probably applies to most ID critics.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 11:21 am
November 25th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Hey Surfguard,
What do you think of Behe's treatment of Paley's old argument in DBB? Just curious.
Comment by matt_nadler — November 25, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
MikeGene, please don't claim to know me (like: thoroughly, better that I know myself) from a few lines I've written on a specific subject. That ridculous. We can discuss for a while, we can meet for a beer once you're in Cologne, Germany, and then, maybe, after a while I'd accept your judging my personality.
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
matt_nadler: Got a link for me? I'm not sure if you're talking about the "irreducible complexity" argument?
Comment by surfguard — November 25, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
surfguard:
The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion.
It shows we don't need to identify the designer(s) in order to detect and attempt to understand the design. That is the point.
surfguard:
That you cannot compare an arrangement of stones to a living being and hence your Stonehenge comparision completely misses every point.
Actually if we can detect design in the simple arrangement of stones we should also be able to detect design in living organisms. What is there that prevents us from doing so?
That is like saying the theory of evolution isn't science because it doesn't say anything about how life originated. That is IF you want to hold each to a similar standard.
surfguard:
Evolution doesn't say how life originated? Excuse me but you can't mean that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
LoL! Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Do you anything about biology?
Comment by Joe G — November 25, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Not exactly. My apologies that I couldn't find a link for it. Here is the source:
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: The Free Press, 1996, p. 209-216.
I am not sure where you could find it in Cologne (it is at local libraries and bookstores in the states). He reconsiders Paley's "watchmaker" argument, and his own argument in relationship to it. I was just wondering your thoughts on that, in light of your own "watch" claims. Don't worry about: there are enough fish to fry as is. Anyways, mach's gut.
Comment by matt_nadler — November 25, 2005 @ 2:59 pm