Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-11 01:35 pm (UTC)
There's really nothing new in this post other than the attempt to equate creationism and intelligent design.

Well, no.

First off, I'll admit I conflate the two, when there's really a potential for depth in ID that doesn't exist in literalist creationism. However, the current debate pretty much has conflated the two, and the powers that be that are strongly pushing for the inclusion of ID in science aren't doing it from a general, theoretical standpoint. As has been mentioned, "intelligent design" comes down to the extremely simple point of "some people thing an intelligence was behind the process." Getting that into a textbook doesn't serve the interests of the people who are active behind this movement. The people active behind this movement are actively against the theory of evolution, and there is a very specific theory of intelligent design they're championing. It includes the phrase "God created them in His image," though admittedly that's a paraphrase.

Put another way, the Buddists, the Shintoists, the Native Americans and the Norse aren't pushing to have science textbooks and curricula changed.

My point is not the inherent paradox of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, either. You're right. That one's been done. My point is, if the strict, literal interpretation of Creationism is to be believed, then God specifically set things up this way. He specifically made the stars seem to have been created in an explosion billions of years before the Universe's actual creation. He specifically made all the dating methods we have point to a world millions of years older than it is. He specifically put a record in place that lends strong evidence and credence to the evolutionary process in man and beast alike.

If He did all that, and then damned people for believing his evidence, he is a bastard. (And, to be blunt, is unworthy of praise and worship.) That's where the theory of Creationism -- and the theological belief that one must only believe Creationism or be damned -- falls down metaphysically.

So, the point is not a retread of "if God is all powerful, why do bad things happen to good people." The point is "Creationism as stated -- and the belief that Creationism must be taught as science and belief in Evolution is wrong, evil and damning -- yields a God who is actively cruel, and that point is both incompatible with Christian theology and is sinful within said theology."

Is that polarized? Yup. Is that polarizing? Yup. But it's also key and core to Christian belief, and far far easier to demonstrate than the thought that you have to reject Darwin or burn in eternal Hellfire.

The fact that by learning the scientific method and judging all of the evidence based on it leads you to believe that it is simpler without a god is irrelevant.

It's worth noting, people who believe in Intelligent Design as a philosophical point but have an understanding of science and faith in the scientific method believe it is metaphysically shown that it is not simpler without a god. They cannot accept that the mind-numbing number of coincidences necessary to lead to a world where we could live and think and see could just happen without intervention and a plan. And they may be right.

However, they don't advocate teaching that in science class.
You may post here only if demiurgent has given you access; posting by non-Access List accounts has been disabled.
(will be screened if not on Access List)
(will be screened if not on Access List)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

demiurgent: (Default)
demiurgent

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags