The Coming Twilight of the Post-Wedge World?
by MikeGeneAs regular readers of Telic Thoughts know, I both looked forward to and applauded the arrival of the post-wedge world. However, I am now beginning to doubt whether the post-wedge world will last very long. Two significant developments have occurred and they have nothing to do with the Discovery Institute. First, as I originally noted, the most famous scientist alive has been undercutting the Dover decision and secondly, this scientist, and several others from academia, have sparked a new socio-political movement that has absorbed this message. This movement includes scientists like Sam Harris, who denies the NAS position that science is neutral about the existence of God and instead uses the NAS membership as evidence to the contrary.
It turns out that I am not the only one who recognizes how Dawkins and his movement threatens the post-wedge world. Consider this excerpt from a recent interview of Dawkins:
If anyone stands up and says "˜I am an atheist because I am a Dawinian,' which I do sort of do, they think their birthday has arrived. It is wonderful for them. I had a meeting with Eric Rothschild, who was a lead lawyer in the Pennsylvania evolution case, and he said, "Thank goodness we didn't call you as a witness," I would have handed the case to the other side. (emphasis added)
It's time to start pondering what Dawkins and his movement mean to the post-wedge world.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
[...] Telic thoughts discusses this Dawkins quote. If anyone stands up and says "˜I am an atheist because I am a Dawinian,' which I do sort of do, they think their birthday has arrived. It is wonderful for them. I had a meeting with Eric Rothschild, who was a lead lawyer in the Pennsylvania evolution case, and he said, "Thank goodness we didn't call you as a witness," I would have handed the case to the other side. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » ‘I am an atheist because I am a Dawinian,…’ — January 13, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Hi MikeGene, Here is a useful link explaining the Lemon Test. Teaching evolutionary theory has a secular purpose, its primary or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it doesn't foster an excessive gov't entanglement with religion. In fact, if a school board took the position that it wanted to teach IDism in order to counter Dawkins' atheistic message, that would only serve to demonstrate that school board's religious motivation.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 15, 2007 @ 12:49 am
January 15th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Hi Aagcobb. You wrote:
I'm of the view that the existence of genomic repair mechanisms are a prerequisite to life including the theorized constructs associated with the RNA world. This accuracy of this has clear implications for both evolution and ID. Assuming further validation of this, particularly at point of origins, and an inclusion within a general ID theoretical framework, would you argue for suppression of teaching that references the concept and how does any of this entangle the government with religion?
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2007 @ 1:11 am
January 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hi Bradford, Assuming the moon were made of green cheese, we'd all go there for a feast. Why don't you deal with the real world?
Comment by Aagcobb — January 15, 2007 @ 10:51 am
January 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hi Bradford, Assuming the moon were made of green cheese, we'd all go there for a feast. Why don't you deal with the real world?
DNA repair mechanisms are very real. You would not last a week without them. Why don't you get beyond the mainstream history mantra and deal with real biology?
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2007 @ 10:58 am
January 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You might want to pass that on to Rothschild. Given Dawkins agenda to get atheists to be more vocal, one has to wonder how long it will be before some zealous science teacher (and Dawkins fan), somewhere, will start helping his/her students connect science with atheism.
Comment by MikeGene — January 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
January 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hi MikeGene,
And such a teacher should be disciplined, just like one who promotes their religion on school time (which I got a lot of in my public high school). Doesn't change the fact that inhibiting religion is not the primary or principal purpose of teaching evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 15, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Let me spell out something that is really beginning to worry me. Wolpert (no small potato) just claimed that "the level of competence of children in school understanding evolution was very, very low. Evolution's a very complex process. It involves genes, it involves development, it involves molecules, and I'm terribly sorry, but it is not something that school children can deal with at that particular level." In fact, this is one of the arguments I have seen against the "teach the controversy" agenda.
So what if some school board says, "Y'know, since kids are not competent enough to reach decisions about the controversy, and some scientists don't even think they are competent enough to really learn about evolution, and there is a movement of scientists who argue that evolution leads to atheism, perhaps we should restrict the teaching of evolution to 12th grade AP biology."
The teacher example I gave you would receive national attention and might just be the catalyst to implement such a policy.
I think that would be a terrible idea, but I'm not sure how you would stop such a policy. I'm telling you, Dawkins movement is front-loading a Dover II that might look very different from Dover I. You guys underestimate the significance of Dawkins new movement.
Comment by MikeGene — January 15, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Aagcobb:
There could be "secular purpose" for teaching all sorts of things that also serve to promote or inhibit religious liberty. In Britain there is no lemon test because the state directly promotes and subsidizes religion in the schools. Thus Dawkins can promote evolutionary biology *as* anti-religion, which is his religion (and for purposes of Constitutional protections, atheism is so classified by the USSC).
On one hand we have critics whining that high school kids and all other humans who are not evolutionary biologists are simply too ignorant/dumb to understand the incredible technical complexity of evolutionary biology, thus are not qualified to criticize it. On the other hand we have critics insisting that high school kids and all other humans be forced to accept evolutionary biology (as dumbed-down pablum) on faith as big-T 'Truth'. Which, they tell us in the very next breath, means religions are to be rejected with prejudice.
Thus a case could be presented that the force feeding of evolutionary pablum to high school kids - which does *not* impart enough information to allow questions or criticisms - serves no other purpose than to instill blind acceptance of scientistic authoritarianism in direct opposition to religious faith in other people's children. Which is Dawkins' oft-asserted purpose in life.
It looks like Dawkins understands better than you do that his approach won't fly in the US for Constitutional reasons. Which *is* the purpose of the lemon test:
Why in the world would you pretend otherwise?
Comment by Joy — January 15, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
MikeGene
The creationists who want to remove evolution from science curriculums already believe its purpose is to foster atheism, and Dawkins has the same freedom to promote his beliefs as the rest of us, so other than the efforts of people such as Ken Miller to educate people that evolution is not incompatible with christianity, I'm not sure what else you think should be done.
Joy,
But Dawkins doesn't sit on an American school board, and never will. And I doubt any creationist will ever find even one school board member who will state that his primary purpose in supporting the teaching of evolution is to promote atheism. And there is about 15 decades of research to support the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, plus many scientists whose faith isn't threatened by it. Plus just because high school kids can't comprehend quantum mechanics isn't a reason to not teach them introductory physics.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 15, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
The creationists who want to remove evolution from science curriculums already believe its purpose is to foster atheism,
Actually there is little documentation for this. A few school boards in a nation of 300 million people. Since anti-IDers have adopted the tactic of conflating creationists with IDers they have undercut the case for this even more. Very few IDers advocate removing evolution from curriculums.
and Dawkins has the same freedom to promote his beliefs as the rest of us, so other than the efforts of people such as Ken Miller to educate people that evolution is not incompatible with christianity,
Neither is ID incompatible with science.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — January 15, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Yep, and Dawkins is working to help the creationists feel vindicated in that belief, now isn't he? What's more, given that Dawins et al. have decided to make all religious people "the problem," the non-creationist audience who might be sympathetic to the creationists' complaint can only grow.
Comment by MikeGene — January 15, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Creationists get all the vindication they need from each other and Genesis. As to the rest, your posts have a high threatiness quotiant, Mike. A movement which consists of a minority of one of the smallest and most despised minorities in America won't worry rational theists very much.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 15, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Aagcobb:
Introductory physics has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. The quantum world is entirely counterintuitive, and any decent physicist will tell you that without couching everything in mystical terms.
That quantum physics exists, that it describes mathematically a very, very strange reality, and that it's responsible for my generation's Damocles' Sword is learned by everyone regardless of whether they ever master f=ma. There have been sci-fi books, movies and TV shows all along that rely upon one odd fact or another of QM to flesh out the plot line.
Still, there are a good many biologists and other scientists out there who aren't entirely convinced by your 15 decades' worth of research. The primary criticisms resurface every generation. Why do you suppose that is?
Comment by Joy — January 15, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
January 16th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Hi Joy,
As far as I can tell, primarily their religious beliefs.
Comment by Aagcobb — January 16, 2007 @ 12:04 am
January 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Joy said:
If you can find a secular purpose for anything in science, coupled with evidence to support it — aye, there's the rub — it's in the books with no court order, no resolution from a school board, no odd law from a state legislature.
A better case could be made that we shouldn't waste kids' time with crank science, the better to let them get the information to understand evolution. There is no ban on kids' asking questions about evolution. The only correlation to kids not getting enough information is the correlation to those places that teachers are afraid to teach the facts due to the constant intimidation from ID advocates and other creationists.
Teach the kids the facts. If ID has a whit of credibility about it, one of those kids can find it. But of course, they can't start the search unless they understand evolution theory and why scientists say it works. The only thing all this wrangling about ID does is preserve ignorance and frustrate science.
Comment by edarrell — January 16, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
January 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
edarrell:
But I was never in favor of teaching ID in schools, Ed. There's nothing to teach, and there won't be anything to teach until science says so. Besides, when science 'discovers' telic processes in the evolution of life they won't call it ID, and they won't be talking about gods/God.
The issue here is the "New Atheists" and their insistence that evolutionary biology answers god questions. It has been established that metaphysics - religious or anti-religious - can't be taught in compulsory public school science classrooms as if it were science. It is beginning to look like the corruption of science y'all have been doing the Chicken Little dance about has managed to survive the wedge. It may yet sink the evolution portion of secondary science education.
That would be a great shame, but it won't be ID's fault. I saw it coming back when I first realized that it was EAs leading the Darwin charge. I too would defend science if I really believed Creationists had a chance in hell of subverting it, but hell's as hot as it's ever been. Of the authoritarian tendencies on both sides, the EAs were always the bigger threat to science and liberty. I suspect that some on your side of the aisle are just now starting to see the same thing.
Comment by Joy — January 17, 2007 @ 1:15 am
January 17th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Hi,
Aagcobb Said:
But the fact is that the primary or principal effect of teaching evolutionary theory is to inhibit religion. It certainly had that effect on me, and on many contributers to this website.
Instilling belief in God need not be the primary or principal purpose of teaching ID. But it would be the effect, that is what makes people fear it. That is why a certain level of anger is detected over it.
I believe in God, I know it isn't in fashion to just come out and say so. Immediately ones intellectual powers are brought into question.
Claims of former agnosticism are scoffed at, seriously doubted. BTW I was never a serious agnostic. But I had serious doubts about any God, but really wanted to believe.
What should really scare people is that if there is a God, He must be hiding himself on purpose. And I do not believe this God is 100% benevolent, I believe God is good, but God is evil to his enemies. Yep, that's the Biblical God. The one that holds me under his power.
In all seriousness.
Comment by Paul Stringini — January 17, 2007 @ 4:36 am