Enemy at the Gates (Buddhism, beliefs, evolution, creation, America)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Enemy at the Gates
II'd like to call your attention to and discuss/debate a new article. It goes to the motives of Intelligent Design (and beyond!) and follows a little bit the organizations pushing and funding ID.

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by Pah

Enemy at the Gates
II'd like to call your attention to and discuss/debate a new article. It goes to the motives of Intelligent Design (and beyond!) and follows a little bit the organizations pushing and funding ID.

Hi Pah!

A very well written article indeed. Mr Holderness' points regarding the infiltration of the political system by he Discovery Institute and associated organisations are well thought through and an intriguing insight into the workings of American Politics.

That being said, what is happening now is not too dis-similar from the way any group goes about gaining ascendancy of it's beliefs.

When the theory of Evolution was first brought to the general populace, it too was targeted at points within a Monotheistic creation theory that would be easy to attack and disprove.

This more recent political maneuvering, is less about whether or not God should be the only theory, than it is about power. If evolution is treated poorly in the full view of the public it gives the conservative right more power in society.

As always, when power and money are involved, faith and belief (either religious or irreligious) take a backseat to a few greedy men's desire for power.

This is the nature of the world. Most humans like to be led because it is easier to be led than it is to think for yourself.

However in the authors' assertion that they seek to destroy science I disagree. Not many in this day and age can argue the validity of science. It is has far too many applications throughout the world and is too widely proven and accepted as a means to achieve, to be destroyed.

I see this more as an arguement as to where Science came from; and as always that is a matter of personal proofs.

Again, a very well written and informative article. Thanks for the link.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

I should emphasis that I did not write the article - my talent and research is utterly lacking. The article author is identified at the top of the article and the copyright provisions are at the bottom.

I tend to agree with the issue of power you raised but I see it as the means to an end which tends to corrupt the result. Sectarians playing in a secular world become more secular and less sectarian.

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by Pah

I should emphasis that I did not write the article - my talent and research is utterly lacking. The article author is identified at the top of the article and the copyright provisions are at the bottom.

I tend to agree with the issue of power you raised but I see it as the means to an end which tends to corrupt the result. Sectarians playing in a secular world become more secular and less sectarian.

Oh, my apologies to the author. It is very well written though. I have edited my post accordingly.

The end you are referring to is an eradication of secular beliefs? Sectarian beliefs are no longer taught in public schooling systems, but religion and religious studies are currently undergoing a revival. Do you think this will not hold true with secular studies, and if so why?

I agree about your point regarding Sectarians becoming more secular. This, in Abrahamic beliefs is the 'temptation' spoken of by their various prophets. To religions such as Taoism, Buddhism and other eastern religions, it is the desire that must be denied.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by SnaleSpace

Oh, my apologies to the author. It is very well written though. I have edited my post accordingly.

The end you are referring to is an eradication of secular beliefs? Sectarian beliefs are no longer taught in public schooling systems, but religion and religious studies are currently undergoing a revival. Do you think this will not hold true with secular studies, and if so why?

I agree about your point regarding Sectarians becoming more secular. This, in Abrahamic beliefs is the 'temptation' spoken of by their various prophets. To religions such as Taoism, Buddhism and other eastern religions, it is the desire that must be denied.

It was noted in the article the goal transends secularism to encompass all materialism. It seeks an establishment of a theocracy through theo-science (to coin an appropiate term). It's future address is the "City on the God" whose suburbs will swallow most of the world. This is not a puny scheme nor a half-hearted goal.

Revivals have fluttered throughout history. Many have failed to be preserved and this one needs attention before critical freedoms vanish except for the religiously privileged.

[s2a]

Re: Enemy at the Gates

Thanks Pah, for bringing this article to the forefront. While there is little within referenced the commentary that is new to my understanding, it's important to fairly expose the motivations and highlight the financial supporters of major ID spokespersons/organizations.

As anyone who is comfortable with science and associative technologies might concede, it's the very terminologies and couched conclusions that scientists employ in defining explained phenomena that is so readily (and easily) mischaracterized and misrepresented by those that are uncomfortable with such explanations, as they may be perceived to be in conflict with their religious beliefs. Such are the invoked "rights" of those to criticize things they don't understand, and mock or fear things they know little to nothing about.

"Science" (that all-encompassing monolithic entity of multiple conspiracies against religious beliefs) does itself no favors in utilizing terms like: "principle"; "suggests"; "hypothesis"; "probable"; "most likely"; and, "theory". Science uses this terminology to express candor and intellectual integrity in presentation of evidenced-based conclusions, so as to exclude inferences of total agreement or irrevocable 100% certitude.

Of course, the problem with such candor, honesty, and integrity is the inevitable semantical parsimony it invites as it may apply to colloquial usage in common conversation and applicable connotations. "Scientists" (and laypersons that have a grasp of scientific methodologies) know that a scientific "theory" is not commensurate in meaning or application with the colloquial usage of "theory", ie. "The car has recurrent starting problems you say? OK, I have a theory about that..." (which is of course, not a "theory" at all, but rather an untested hypothesis lacking/awaiting a potential fact/evidence-based conclusion). Critics of scientific "theories" are quick to employ the common misunderstanding of most folks by playing upon the ignorance of many who do not appreciate the distinctions in meanings between the usage of the same word.

ID proponent: "After all, even scientists admit that evolution is 'just a theory'!"
Uninformed guy: "Oh, is that all it is? Just a theory? Just a guess? Well, then I suppose my guess is just as good as any scientist's!"

Preying upon such ignorance is easy, and plays well enough to those who really don't want, or care, to devote any additional time or effort in understanding extremely complex findings, principles, or "proofs".

ID proponents typically utilize the logical fallacy of "Argument by (Complex) Question", akin to:
"How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?"
There is no concise, or "snappy" answer to a question rife with complexity and requisitely extended explanation. Thusly, any proffered honest and detailed answer appears to be either defensive or long-winded. If a "scientist" attempts such a reply, a subsequent "Argument from Incredulity" surely follows...
"Who can understand all that gobbledygook you're saying? I know I can't! Why can't you just admit that there's an easier explanation? What are you trying to hide/deny?"

And so, ID gains adherents in providing a "simple" answer to arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) by saying, "a higher intelligence[!]" must be the cause. Simple. Neat. No added explanation (or evidence) required. "Uniformed Guy" can go back to his daily routine without having to hash out or resolve any perceived dichotomies in his faith or perspectives on the world in which he resides. "Science is just guessing...and ID is just as good a guess as any other, so why not teach that as science too?"

Before any schools begin to teach science, they should teach students critical thinking, and how to evaluate/discern fallacy/specious argument from demonstrable fact. This might stem the ensuing tide of ID proponents...but might very well spawn a new rebellion to introduce RT ("religious thinking") into public schools...

[Jaiket]

The article appears a little over the top. How would a few creationists in the USA significantly alter a massive international community?

Just a tad paranoid?

[michel]

Originally Posted by s2a

Before any schools begin to teach science, they should teach students critical thinking, and how to evaluate/discern fallacy/specious argument from demonstrable fact. This might stem the ensuing tide of ID proponents...but might very well spawn a new rebellion to introduce RT ("religious thinking") into public schools...

I wonder at what age this ought to begin; I can forsee problems about children telling their parents to stop lying when talkind about Santa, the tooth fairy, that babies are brought by storks.............