The Morality Play: Act III
by MikeGeneThe moral dimension to the ID debate exists largely because of two very different views about humanity. On one side there is the Sanctity of Life while the other side rallies around the Quality of Life. The former view is largely religious in nature, arguing that all humans have intrinsic value as a consequence of their divine origin. The other is largely secular, often defining "quality" to reflect a valued mental state "“ the use of reason unhindered by pain and suffering. It is this divide that fuels the debates about abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc. These are all debates about who we are.
The cartoon perspective of the ID debate has us viewing the ID movement as a bunch of religious fanatics who can't come to terms with what the scientists are finding about fruit flies and fish. But a deeper perspective allows us to see that there are hordes of scholars and influential people who are trying to use lab findings to reshape and "evolve" society in the image of their theories.
A good example is eugenicist Steven Pinker. Mary Midgley reviews his attempt to recover "human nature" and offers us the relevant observation:
But the trouble goes deeper. "Pinker Two" relies heavily on a sharp, dramatic contrast between "science" and the rest of thought. He sees his favoured doctrines as science - respectable, ordered thinking, the only right way to go. He offers them as the only proven theories, contrasted with primitive, disorganised "intuition" which is all anybody has used until now. He reports their views as factual discoveries.
This is not a mindset that has time for any distinction between MN and PN. Pinker views science as more than research; he views it as "the only right way to go." Thus, just as we might alter the practice of dispensing antibiotics in light of Darwinian theory, he likewise would have us think about altering our views of infanticide in light of Darwinian theory. It's all about using the lab to change society to better "adapt" it to our Darwinian "human nature."
The moral dimension to the debate is not going away because the "reality-based" community brings it to the debate. Whether it's the bigoted approach of Dawkins, trying to use science to destroy religion, or the "enlightened" approach of the eugenicist, trying to improve society with Darwinian theory, the moral dimension has always been a part of those trying to use the lab to change society. If you try to use the lab to change society, you are inviting society to change the lab. Action "“ reaction.
As many scientists, judges, lawyers, lawmakers, journalists, etc. bring their view of "what ought to be" into the public square, posturing as if they are Ambassadors of Science and their views are the Findings of Science, they front-load our society for reactions that will question and challenge the way science is done. And one such current reaction is the ID movement. The "Wedge" has largely been spawned by the people who hate it most.
