See What They See
by MikeGene
We live in a culture where our media often defines our reality for us. This is because we are a nation of consumers. We not only consume products, but we consume images, news, and stories. We sit before the TV or our favorite web page and absorb the packaged message. Since most people do not have the time to think critically about all the visual and auditory messages that bombard us daily, those images seep in and shape our views of the world around us.
Thanks to the Dover trial, Intelligent Design has become part of the pantheon of media imagery, taking its place next to our obsession with Britney Spears and the newest commercial for Nike. This is clearly seen from the slick article in the New York Times that reviews the upcoming PBS documentary, Judgment Day.
Now, I have no desire to criticize the documentary (afterall, I was pleased with the court's decision), but I think it is worth noting the images that are being disseminated about ID.
How does the pop-culture mindset (the Pop Mind) see "Intelligent Design?" The picture from the NYT captures it perfectly. First, the Pop Mind sees a teacher at the board. Message: ID is all about teaching children in the class room. Second, what is the teacher writing? Message: It's Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
This meme is picked up in the text portion of the article, where the journalist speaks for the Pop Mind:
For one thing, she said in a recent interview, she had no desire to wade into the "nasty" issue that was at the heart of the lawsuit: whether it is constitutionally acceptable for public schools to teach, as an alternative to the theory of evolution, the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without supernatural intervention, a notion called intelligent design.
Yet, as I have explained many times before, the logic of ID does not entail that it exists as an "alternative to evolution." There is no logical reason to cast this debate in the polarized "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" mold. On the contrary, I would argue that Intelligent Design interfaces with Evolution, such that ID shapes evolution and evolution influences ID; it's a symbiosis. What's more, there is nothing in the logic of ID that would force us to assume or conclude that life was designed through supernatural intervention. Thus, the characterization from Cornelia Dean is just another standard pop media image.
Of course, I am quite sure the media image of ID can be backed up with multiple example of ID proponents who exist just as the image says. But in the end, it is a pop media image divorced from the logic of ID and critical thinking. The question is whether people will let the media define reality for them or whether they will think about these issues independently. Luckily, many of the readers of this small blog fall into the latter category.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Mike,
You're not obsessed enough with Ms. Spears. It's Britney.
Comment by keiths — November 11, 2007 @ 9:51 am
November 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am
LOL. Thanks, Keiths.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2007 @ 9:54 am
November 11th, 2007 at 11:56 am
They are the dominant ID group by far. Any media portrayal that gave the sanitized version you prefer would be highly misleading, as misleading as Discovery Institute propaganda.
Comment by Nick Matzke — November 11, 2007 @ 11:56 am
November 11th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hi Nick,
I understand this. In fact, I certainly do not expect the pop media to present a nuanced, sophisticated analysis of things. The pop media, by definition, thrives off sound bites and sensationalism. Those of us ID types that don't fall into this media template simply need to be aware of this. We need to understand what others "see and hear" when they are told "ID." Otherwise, there is no hope for real communication.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
November 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Let me expand on this. Front-loading is one mechanism by which ID can shape evolution. Yet what about evolution influencing ID? It would seem to me that any designer of life would know that such life forms would subsequently evolve. Thus, knowledge of evolution would likely influence the nature of that design.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
November 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I agree that the ID concept they describe is over-simplified, and being sympathetic to ID does not entail being anti-evolution. And I personally view evolution as a creative force besides – we've certainly harnassed the basic act for our own purposes. (Playing around with it to create radio antennae, etc.)
Comment by nullasalus — November 11, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
November 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
You can support an outcome but not support the court's legal, scientific, or philosophical reasoning. I may not want ID taught by public school teachers, but that doesn't mean I think the legal reasoning of Judge Jones was good.
But, technically what they mean by "evolution" is "naturalism." If that is what they mean, even without knowing it, then yes I am against evolution. Given a strict defintion of evolution, I know of no one including Young-Earthers against evolution.
Comment by geoffrobinson — November 11, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
November 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
geoffrobinson, "I may not want ID taught by public school teachers, but that doesn't mean I think the legal reasoning of Judge Jones was good."
I wholeheartedly agree with you. While I am content to suggest that ID is not yet ready for public schools, I would contend that Judge Jones' decision was far too sweeping, and will create undue trouble down the road. I would have been much happier if he simply suggested that ID was a poorly supported hypthesis, and as such was not ready for the pre-college educational experience. Suggesting that ID was inappropriate because it was inherently the practice of a particular religion (Christianity) was balderdash, and will be harmful.
Comment by bFast — November 11, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
November 12th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Furthermore, Judge Jones relied upon the genetic logical fallacy to reach his decision. Who cares what their motivation was? Atheists could be motivated by atheism to teach evolution.
Comment by geoffrobinson — November 12, 2007 @ 1:20 am
November 12th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Even if true, it doesn't matter constitutionally, because evolution stands on its own two scientific legs and therefore there is a primary secular purpose and effect to teaching evolution, i.e., science education.
ID can't stand on its own two scientific legs, therefore the claimed secular purpose and effect ("we are just teaching science!") didn't work. The court therefore hears evidence on what the real primary purpose and effect were, and of course the evidence was overwhelming that it was all about religious apologetics.
Comment by Nick Matzke — November 12, 2007 @ 3:50 am
November 12th, 2007 at 7:48 am
geoffrobinson:
Absolutely corrrect. I thought efforts to introduce ID into a small PA town were unwise. As an IDist I recognize the need for experimental support if ID is to become scientifically established. That is where the case for ID is ultimately decided. To think a judge in PA can decide that issue is ludicrous.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2007 @ 7:48 am
November 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
< soapbox >
The first and most appalling travesty here is that a judge is dictating high school curricula. The second travesty is that everybody seems fine with this.
I honest to goodness cannot get my head around a nation where large numbers of people will passionately resist any attempt by the government to take away their firearms, but will acquiesce in the government raising their children. Surely if we have any sense that a people should be free and independent, and that a nation ought to be built out of citizens, not serfs, we should find the idea of state-dictated school curricula abhorrent.
< /soapbox >
Comment by BenK — November 12, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
What I see is a disgrace to the scientific community. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Amplifying what Bradford said, it isn't just "ludicrous" that a federal judge decide what is/not science, it is appalling that the scientific community stood by silently while this was done.
I feel dirty. I feel ashamed. I think I have to vomit. Take a shower.
I couldn't have imagined that I would witness such a thing.
I want to hear from real scientists about this. Not the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of "science" like Nick Matzke and PZMyers.
We ought to feel ashamed that we allowed this to happen.
Comment by Rock — November 13, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
November 14th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Hey nice soapbox Benk (and Rock too), here's mine…
"Science" is at this time a global institution that subsequently wields enormous gobal influence. Presently this institution is under-girded by a limiting ideological "paradigm" or core-hypothesis known as "materialism." In the materialist hypothesis, "matter" comes first and "mind" (if it exists at all) is but an epiphenominon of matter. The logical result of the materialist core hypothesis is classic Weinbergian/Dawkinian pointlessness, in which neither the universe or any of its inhabitants has any real value. Children, for instance, are seen as meaningless conglomerations of meaningless matter.
It is possible however, to invert the materialist core hypothesis to produce a cosmic ID hypothesis in which "mind" comes first and "matter" comes second as an epiphenominon of mind. Just as with the nihilistic Dawkinian/Wienbergian pointlessness (zero value) that follows from the logic of materialism, sacredness (infinite value) follows from its inversion into a cosmic ID core-hypothesis.
The adoption of an ID core-hypothesis into science globally would literally transform the world — with the sacredness of all people and of all existence now acknowledged as real by science. Under an ID paradigm the conflicts and societal ills that presently plague humanity would simply evaporate — for such is the power science to act as an oracle and as a force for good (should it wish to do so). Children would, at an early age be taught of their sacredness (infinite value) and the sacredness of all others and their place in a wholly sacred living universe. This in turn would immunize them as young adults from the drugs, despair and nihilism (and school shootings) that presently plague modern society.
With the sacredness of all people recognized at an official scientific level, wars (including the "culture war") would be a thing of the past and levels of co-operation unheard of in present culture would become commonplace. Both "peace on earth" and "heaven on earth" are entirely possible, should anyone be genuinely interested these.
It is worth noting however that while I am indeed recommending cosmic ID (inverted materialism) as a new paradigm for science, I am not recommending religion of any kind. I reject all of the world's religions and have always rejected all religion. Even if Judge Jones cannot distinguish ID from religion, I most certainly can and so can anyone else who looks seriously into this issue. The question that needs to be asked as I see it, is "who is the Judge (and PBS) protecting with this work "“ the children (who would benefit enormously from official scientific recognition of their sacredness) or status quo "science" (nihilistic sub-naturalist materialism)?
The scientific evidence for designing intelligence (fine-tuners) is found in the fine tuning of both the universe and exquisitely tuned biological functional specificity (such as DNA coding). The fine tuning of both the universe and biology was not discovered by consultation with spiritual mediums, holy books, sorcery or by any other religious practices. Modern arguments for design are the end product of rigorous *scientific* investigations as to the nature of the universe.
Comment by William Brookfield — November 14, 2007 @ 2:13 am
November 14th, 2007 at 2:52 am
BenK:
You are aware that 90% or so of children go to public schools? Who will put an end to this abhorrent atrocity?
Rock:
My goodness, what a sensitive soul you are.
William Brookfield:
And there will be free intelligently-designed ponies for all!
Comment by mtraven — November 14, 2007 @ 2:52 am
November 14th, 2007 at 6:50 am
I believe BenK was referring to the preferability of having we the people determine school cirriculum rather than obscure bureaucrats or famous judges.
Comment by Bradford — November 14, 2007 @ 6:50 am
November 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Yes of course. As ID evolutionists we know this to be true, but if your intent is to wage war, then polarization makes sense. In order to wage war one needs an enemy — a "vs" — a polarization. As I see it, the best thing to do is to continue sharing our science while being as respectful as possible toward them — be agents of peace.
Comment by William Brookfield — November 14, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
November 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Since the controversy first broke I have had misgivings over what happened in Dover Pa. I think that what the Dover School Board was proposing: reading a one minute statement addressing some concerns over evolution and informing students about a book in the library which presented an alternative POV was really stupid. But it was also innocuous.
Someone tell me how a stupid one minute statement violates the constitution? It was teaching nothing. It was establishing nothing. It accomplished nothing. It was just a stupid innocuous statement.
And, why is it that the radical left isn't satisfied with its victory? They won that case in Dover, didn't they? Why is it that they want to keep the controversy alive? What do they continue to be so worried about? I don't understand the paranoia. Of course that's a truism because most paranoia is completely irrational in the first place.
Nova could have done an objective and responsible piece of historical journalism on Tuesday night. Instead, they chose to climb on the anti-ID band wagon and chose to give us caricatures, stereotypes and reporting that was more often than not biased and one sided. And what was that supposed to accomplish?
I was very disappointed. Nova used to be one of my favorite science programs.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 15, 2007 @ 4:29 pm