>IY>However, I am disturbed about two implications of "intelligent
> >design," one is political, the other educational.
> >
> >There are some Christians in the USA who think that the USA should
> >become officially a Christian nation. They want to end the separation
> >of church and state. I think they want a nation in which everyone will
> >be equal except that, using the words of George Orwell, some will be
> >"more equal." Orwell in "Animal Farm" was writing about the Soviet
> >Union.
SJ
>No doubt but they are a minority and IMHO always will be. Most
>Christians I know think, and history bears it out, that established churches
>are a *disaster* for Christianity.
Chris
It doesn't happen often, but I have to agree with Jones on this. Once you
link government and religion, the government (whose primary method of
doing things is force), will start attempting to ensure that people have
the right religious views. Naively, a person who agreed with these views
might think this a good thing. But, when voluntaristic persuasion is
replaced by force, a not-so-subtle shift occurs, and the views themselves
become split between what is nominally accepted and what is implicit in the
imposition and the method of imposition.
>After all, the USA idea of separation of
>church and State was set up by *Christians* (i.e. the pilgrim fathers) and it
>was set into the Constitution when Christianity was in the majority.
>
>IY>I fear that these Christians will use "intelligent design" to further
> >their ends. They want to say that supernatural intelligent agents,
> >potentially including their Christian God, are a proven scientific
> >fact.
>
>This is false as far as ID is concerned. Even if design is shown to be
>empirically detectable, there is no way to get from there by reason alone to
>the Christian God. Several hundred years of Christian Natural Theology
>has demonstrated that.
>
>IY>A scientific statement affirming the supernatural will give
> >their cause new prestige. They will argue that, if God is real, then
> >an America organized around His teachings is essential. Freedom will
> >then be freedom to obey God. All other rights can (and must) be
> >abandoned.
>
>Disagree. If design is established it will help Christian apologetics, but
>that
>has always been *persuasive* not coercive. Granted that at times in the
>Christian church's 2000-year history, when Christianity was mixed with
>politics, there was oppression. But even then it was *nothing* compared to
>the oppression of atheism. Maybe 10,000 people were executed by the
>Spanish inquisition (even 1 was one too many). But over *100 million*
>people have been executed by atheist regimes in this century alone!
>
>IY>Of course, one can point to other groups in other religions with
> >similar ideas; Islamic fundamentalists are one such group. Iran
> >and Afghanistan are examples of states that they have created.
>
>The problem is using the same word "fundamentalism" for *Islam* and
>Christianity as though they were the same thing. Islam's official teaching is
>jihad (holy war) against its enemies. Christianity's official teaching is to
>*love* its enemies (Mt 5:44).
>
>IY>The problem of intelligent design in education is less important
> >(except that, if these Christians can introduce God into science
> >classes in public schools, they have introduced God into Government).
>
>The ID movement is introducing *design* into science classes, not
>"God". If anti-design can be in science classes then why can't
>design?
>
>IY>Essentially, the goal of intelligent design is to show that
> >supernatural beings are real.
>
>No. It is to show that *design* is real. The inference as to whether the
>cause was "supernatural" or not is outside ID. FJ/Pim claims he could
>believe the designing cause was natural if design was established. There is
>nothing to stop him believing that if he wants to.
>
>IY>But, for students, this creates a
> >problem. Are there demons? Are there curses? Is AIDs a curse?
>
>ID could not establish that there are "demons" or "curses".
>
>*Christianity* indeed claims there are "demons" or "curses", but even there
>there is room for disagreement, both whether they continue to exist today
>and in particular cases.
>
>I speak from personal experience of this-I was a Church Secretary in a
>Baptist Church where we had to discipline on of the church Deacons (i.e.
>Elder) who had gone of the rails and was claiming even minor illnesses
>were the result of demons. The church was a "fundamentalist" one but
>most of the members agreed with the Diaconate (i.e. Elder's Board) that he
>had gone too far-way beyond what the New Testament would support.
>
>IY>Microbiology is hard to learn. There are advantages to believing
> >that AIDs is a curse. Does your mother have cancer? Maybe you
> >should consult a witch doctor. Suppose you want to design an
> >airplane. Must you study aerodynamics (difficult) or is it
> >effective to pray with polished sincerity that your airplane will
> >fly safely?
>
>This is absurd. Does Ivar *really* believe this is going to happen if
>*design* is established as real?
>
>IY>From Leland Smith's "A Response to Priests of Scientific Orthodoxy"
> >
> >>Obviously, the scientific community accepts the proposition that
> intelligent
> >>design can be detected. So why does it cry foul when one hunts for design
> >>in biological systems or in the cosmos? The answer offered by Smith is
> that
> >>"we must insist that descriptions and explanations of life and our universe
> >>be devised from our four senses of perception that can be tested by
> suitable
> >>rigorous means." But if that criterion does not exclude from science other
> >>hunts for intelligence, why should it do so in this particular case?
> >
> >Hunting for God is fine with me.
>
>ID is not "hunting for God". ID is hunting for *design*.
>
>IY>If someone finds one, my opinions
> >will matter little. But make sure the method is legitimate. The
> >methods used by the William Dembski's and the Dean Kenyon's are
> >not.
>
>Ivar does not say *why* they are not "legitimate".
>
>In fact the use of the word "legitimate" is strange in the context of
>science.
>As I posted the other day, the attemps to rule out ID by demarcation
>criteria is fundamentally *anti*-science. Science should be always open to
>the evidence, no matter how uncongenial that might be to scientists own
>personal philosophy of how they think the world *should* be.
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"In this way Darwinism is unique among scientific theories. Because it
>attempts to explain not only events in the outside world but also man's
>origins and his place in those events, Darwinism straddles the gap between
>philosophy and science, between faith and reason, in a way no other
>scientific theory does. If we were to discover tomorrow that Copernicus
>was wrong, that the sun actually does go round the earth rather than the
>reverse, what would happen? Obviously the physicists and astronomers
>would have headaches trying to reconcile the discovery with their other
>observations, but would it change your life or mined Would we think of
>ourselves, or the purpose in our lives, in a different way? Probably not. Not
>so with Darwinism." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of
>Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.9)
>Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:24:46 EDT