Lord J-Bar is much, much more optimistic than I am.
Even considering how clever ID advocates have been, all it takes is knowledge to defeat ID. Once a person understands science, it’s easy to see ID for what it is: theology. Plus, the public needs to know why ID came to be. It doesn’t come any clearer than the Discovery Institute’s document, “The Wedge Strategy” (you can see it here), where they proclaim that the purpose of ID is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” (“The Wedge Document,” Introduction). Once the public realizes this, ID will no longer be an issue and will go by the wayside. However, one can never let down their guard. ID supporters have proven time and again just how effective they are at influencing an ignorant public.
There's an important ingredient of the recipe missing there: in addition to understanding that ID is theology, they have to understand that that is a bad thing. I suspect the majority of the IDists already know that it is a strategem to grant a god the privilege of being scientifically credible…the only issue is that they know you're not supposed to admit it.
- Log in to post comments
Actually, most ID'st are upfront with what they believe, otherwise you would not had found so easily their mission statement. This is common in most popular ID sites.
Its the evolutionists that refuse to be nailed down. That's why the do not want to talk about living things but not the origin of life. They state the evolution is everywhere but confine it to biology when convenient. They reject ID on moral grounds but care not to discuss the basis of morality. When a relevant objection is made they cry foul play (goalposts) copout.
Actually, most ID'st are upfront with what they believe, otherwise you would not had found so easily their mission statement. This is common in most popular ID sites.
Its the evolutionists that refuse to be nailed down. That's why they talk about living things but not the origin of life. They state the evolution is everywhere but confine it to biology when convenient (equivocation). They reject ID on moral grounds but care not to discuss the basis of morality. When a relevant objection is made they cry foul play (goalposts) copout.
Once the public realizes this, ID will no longer be an issue and will go by the wayside.
The public realizes this.
That mission statement is easy to find because it was smuggled out of the Dicovery Institute and is now published on numerous pro-evolution sites. It was even marked "Top Secret." The whole purpose was to hide the "theory's" theological underpinnings and it failed miserably.
"...There's an important ingredient of the recipe missing there: in addition to understanding that ID is theology, they have to understand that that is a bad thing."
opinions and beliefs are protected in a democratic society so that people cannot impose them upon each other.
facts are not amenable to, nor require such protection.
that's the "problem".the "ingredient" doesn't exist outside of the mind that has adopted, through education, a scientific mind-set. The observables lead relentlessly to inescapable conclusions. "bad" takes on quantifiable properties, and is no longer an opinion fueled by belief.
s.
The Wedge Strategy wants to overthrow materialism.
Hmm, so are they going to advocate spiritual algebra, devotional physics, holy chemistry, ecclesiatical physiology, and holy horology?
Nahhh. These are just rotten little brats in grownup bodies having fun screwing around with serious people just for the sheer hell of it. They've learned the buttons to push, and now they're banging on them with hammers. Oh, what fun!
Religious faith? Nahhh. If forced to bet one way or the other, they would always bet on the sprinkler system over prayer. They are almost always right in when not to take themselves seriously.
ID doesn't even rise to the level of a theology. It's nothing more than a maketing strategy for a theology.
Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud...
Those horrible, bastard thinkers.
Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
The hell? Nobody ever told me about this false heaven on earth! Is it Disneyland?
The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases...
What is it with these people and their three distinct but interdependent whatnots? Phases, gods...
I must say, after reading the document, that yes, this is certainly an Evil Plan, but it's pretty much laughable. If God can't make his evil followers a death ray, why do they follow him?
Chinchillaxilla wrote:
I must say, after reading the document, that yes, this is certainly an Evil Plan, but it's pretty much laughable. If God can't make his evil followers a death ray, why do they follow him?
The pension plan?
Commentator sez:
Wha?
1. My ninth-grade biology textbook discussed the origin of life, as far as it was understood at the time. The technical term is abiogenesis, "creation from non-life". We don't know all the details of the process, and it's pretty different from how life has operated in the billions of years hence — no plants, no animals, no predators, no DNA — so it's appropriate to classify it under a different subject heading. But nobody dodges the bullet.
2. Who says we're confining evolution to biology? That just happens to be the place where it's easiest to test and confirm. We apply the central insights of evolution to computer science (genetic algorithms, a well-established technique), to sociology (memetics, interesting but not quite there yet) and to cosmology (Lee Smolin's proposal for baby universes born of black holes, evolving to select cosmological parameters).
3. We never decline the chance to discuss the origin of morality. In fact, we make a pretty big deal about how we can explain why morality can come about. When we say "altruism", "kin selection" or "group selection" (among other terms) we have the problem of morality firmly in mind. Francis Collins may say that science has no exploration for the existence of moral behavior, but we know he's wrong.
4. Relevant objections are few and far between.
Yeah, Hank'll give you a million bucks after you leave town, but if you don't kiss his ass he'll kick your ass.*
*Actually, that would be Karl who kicks your ass. Hank doesn't come to town any more, silly.
Commentator: "They reject ID on moral grounds but care not to discuss the basis of morality."
What does rejection of IDiocy have to do with morality? Oh, wait, it's the whole "foundation of lies" thing, huh?
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
NOW I understand what the Republicans have been up to. If they make things too good for people, someone might think they're materialists. Better to ignore everything Jesus said about helping the poor and keep people miserable so they'll appreciate how nice heaven is when they get there.
Actually, most ID'st are upfront with what they believe, otherwise you would not had found so easily their mission statement. This is common in most popular ID sites.
But have you read their disclaimer, in which they very forcefully argue that the Wedge Strategy is a left wing atheistic conspiracy?
Unfortunately, their argument clearly proves itself wrong. But the point is that they are not being up front. But, they are trying to hide a very large elephant in a very small room full of elephant experts.
Commentator:
Actually, biologists talk about the origin of life all the time.
1) That's not what the word "equivocation" means.
2) "Meteorologists state that weather is everywhere, but they confine it to specific locales when it's convenient. Therefore, meteorologists are wrong."
Same argument.
Actually, biologists reject ID on evidentiary and scientific, not moral, grounds.
Although I suppose you could count the exposure of the shameless lies and cynical manipulation of the ignorant by the IDist monkey-suit crowd to be a rejection based on moral grounds. In that sense, yes, a lot of us do reject ID on moral grounds. That's just the icing on the cake of ID's profound scientific shortcomings, though.
Actually, several biologists and sociobiologists have tackled the evolutionary basis of morality.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA" at the top of your lungs is not a relevant objection.
Sonja: Actually, many Republicans are inverse Marxists in a number of ways. For example, here are two. (1) They redistribute wealth, but towards the wealthy. (2) They think that religion is the opium of the masses - but add "And a good thing too!"
Republicans: socialism for the rich -- capitalism for the poor; Christianity without the Sermon on the Mount.
Just ask them, and they'll tell you that it's not religious at all. Except for all the parts where they quote the bible. And the parts where you ask them if the designer is the Christian God and they change the subject so they don't have to lie.
Similarly I suspect that most religious folk know, deep down, that it's all bunk. But it feels so nice to pretend! So once you're pretending about spirituality, you may as well pretend about science, too.
Roy says:
"The Wedge Strategy wants to overthrow materialism.
Hmm, so are they going to advocate spiritual algebra, devotional physics, holy chemistry, ecclesiatical physiology, and holy horology?"
I once wanted to start a company called Applied Metaphysics, Inc., but couldn't think of a product, alas. In an ID world, I could be turning out half-baked philosophy (now in the freezer section of your local supermarket!) Teaching instructions: Thaw, place in a 375F oven for 20 minutes. Serve immediately.
Actually, most ID'st are upfront with what they believe, otherwise you would not had found so easily their mission statement.
You are quite the ignorant moronic liar, aren't you? Since you know nothing of the history of that statement, you can't know that it was easy to obtain.
Republicans: socialism for the rich -- capitalism for the poor; Christianity without the Sermon on the Mount.