I was sitting home this AM (don't ask) and noticed that the creationists (YEC) have a new movie/packo'lies coming out. Looking at the articles related to this stupidity, I came across this quote:

Intelligent design shouldn’t be taught in science classes anywhere because it is academically sterile, and corrupt. It shouldn’t be taught in science classes because it has no basis in science. It shouldn’t be taught to Christians because it depends on distorting the views and facts of science — lying, in essence and fact — and it’s really crappy theology, requiring a creator who is deceptive, a creator who is contrary to Christian theology. <link>

There's more in that piece concerning some of the lies Creationists tell concerning Darwin that makes it interesting reading but you can read it for yourself.

What struck me is that Christianity (and all other religions) teaches that lying is immoral but that teaching seems to be lost when Christians (et al) are "defending" their religion. This has always puzzled me until I read George Lakoff's Moral Politics. In that work, Lakoff explains that, for Conservatives, upholding the Conservative worldview holds the highest priority within the Conservative worldview. In this context, lying about an idea that, in a Religious Conservative's mind, is a threat to the underlying basis for his worldview is almost required. The struggle against secularism and science is a struggle for the underpinning of their faith.

Lies are acceptable. And, because Evolutionary Science is a truth-based endeavor, lies are required.

Religion has nothing to do with any "god". It is a human construct that was created for entirely human reasons.

This is the post that started me on my brousing: <link>

"Lakoff explains that, for Conservatives, upholding the Conservative worldview holds the highest priority within the Conservative worldview. In this context, lying about an idea that, in a Religious Conservative's mind, is a threat to the underlying basis for his worldview is almost required. The struggle against secularism and science is a struggle for the underpinning of their faith."

Good point. Creationism is a political offensive with the goal of making the environment safe for the rest of the Christianist agenda. If the first words of the foundational sacred history are shown untrue, everything built upon those words is also called into question. This problem is not unique to Christianism.

Of course, I didn't intend to say that the problem of an anti-factual/anti-science religious faction is a unique feature of Christianity. You'll note that I broadened my statements about religion to include ALL religions. I use Christianity as a (bad) example because apologists for Christianity are thick on the ground hereabouts and because it is Christian Conservatives that are making the push against science at the moment. In fact, in some areas and speaking of some religions, the Religious Conservatives have mostly won in the struggle against science. I think that those areas are the most obviously backward (which goes to show what the struggle against science leads to).

"Of course, I didn't intend to say that the problem of an anti-factual/anti-science religious faction is a unique feature of Christianity. You'll note that I broadened my statements about religion to include ALL religions."

And I would broaden it further to include most social movements created by mankind. The ability to zealously defend proven error against factual attack is part of the human make up, I think.

"In fact, in some areas and speaking of some religions, the Religious Conservatives have mostly won in the struggle against science. I think that those areas are the most obviously backward (which goes to show what the struggle against science leads to)."

Not sure that we should accept that southern rural areas are the most backward or alone in their backwardness in this country. Better might be that poverty and poor education make fertile ground for anti-intellectualism, which suggests that better education is the obvious cure, which explains why the Christianists, among others, attack education so energetically.

Good post, just wanted to look at some ideas.

Briefly scanned the post. Three observations. First, creationism and Christianity isn't the same. The lump them in the same boat is a hasty generalization fallacy. Christianity doesn't teach that lying is okay. Those Christians who justify it are brought into question, as you surmise, concerning Christian beliefs. They likely err. Secondly, the said implication of the justification for lying reminds me of some Islamic fundamentalist groups who also seem to imply that lying is okay in defending the faith. This may or may not suggest that such Christian groups are like Islamic fundamentalists - lost as the original precepts of their faith or they dismiss certain tenets with a wave of the hand. Not true followers of the faith per se but politicians who use their faith as a platform. Thirdly, intelligent design and creationism isn't necessarily in the same boat either. Right now they appear to be, but there's no reason that intelligent design can go a different route. SETI, for example, appears to be a form of intelligent design to me but it's not about creationism. Moreover, right now the trademark name "Intelligent Design" only concerns belief in a creator God, but as SETI might point out, intelligent design (not as the trademark but as an all encompassing postulate that intelligent X was responsible for Y, not limited to God - SETI for example, which doesn't go by the trademark intelligent design, a Christian sectual theme, but it's obvious that they are looking for intelligent signs in the universe) could simply be trying to spot any form of intelligence in the universe. Why does it necessarily have to be about a supernatural creator god? What about aliens for example?

You're right, sort of.

There's not much difference between Creationists and UFOlogists. Both doggedly pursue their beliefs without regard for rational thought or empirical evidence.

"Both doggedly pursue their beliefs without regard for rational thought or empirical evidence."

The same could be said about many things in science. Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life. Maybe there are better treatments? Or take the use of statins? Many purse the belief that statins prevent heart attacks, but it's not true. This is pursued without regard to rational thought or empirical evidence. The evidence suggests that statins don't work because they lower cholesterol but because they function as a lipid anti-oxidant. These days dogma in science can be just as bad as anything else. I wouldn't perch on that pedestal of superiority if I were you, talking about rational thought and such. Dogma can exist in science just as surely as other systems.

Patrick:

"Both doggedly pursue their beliefs without regard for rational thought or empirical evidence."

The same could be said about many things in science. Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life. Maybe there are better treatments? Or take the use of statins? Many purse the belief that statins prevent heart attacks, but it's not true. This is pursued without regard to rational thought or empirical evidence. The evidence suggests that statins don't work because they lower cholesterol but because they function as a lipid anti-oxidant. These days dogma in science can be just as bad as anything else. I wouldn't perch on that pedestal of superiority if I were you, talking about rational thought and such. Dogma can exist in science just as surely as other systems.

These comments on chemotherapy and statins--whether they are correct or not--can at least be proven or disproven.

Intelligent design belongs in an entirely different category: those ideas which cannot be proven at all.

Patrick,

It appears to me that you don't have a problem with 'science' so much as you do with corporations attempting to profit from bad science. The CEO and Marketing Director of a pharmaceutical company are not scientists.

That's the point; it has been proven but the pharmaeceuticals keep the stuff around for profit motive. Yet conventional medicine continues to see what it believes instead of believing what is seen. Science is highly dogmatic. I could debate this all day but just look at what other countries accept as medical practice and what others don't. For example, they use vitamin K2 therapy in Japan. In the U.S. they come up with some kind of bogus drug that give you strontium, but all you really need is a strontium supplement - instead you get side effects. I could go on and on but am trying not to and i'm not discussing the side notes like K2 and strontium. Just looking for comparisons so you guys aren't blind your whole life. Science truly IS dogmatic. That's why you have paradigms in science for instance and why they only change when you get enough people banned together. Some of the dogma is rooted in getting grant money too. Blah blah.

And are we talking about the trademark Intelligent Design or the class of intelligent design? In my book, SETI belongs to the the class of intelligent design but not the trademark dealing with creationism. Intelligent design, the class, is not an entirely different field. But right now that class is largely empty with only SETI belonging to it. You can think what you want to though. However, if it means anything, the trademark probably belongs to a different field, but I haven't studied much of it. Have you? Or are you just rehashing typical belief systems? And...sometimes science postulates things that can't be proven too, like parallel universes. What cannot be proven and what can is not a litmus test for science. Parallel universes can't be proven, yet it's science. So...there's no reason to automatically dismiss the trademark Intelligent Design as non-science by the same token. It's too quick to judge; must people who say such things don't know much of the details of ID but dismiss it out of contempt for Christians or because it's easier than arguing in it's defense. Or...they use the "short cut" and just lean upon some court ruling that announced it as "non-science". But I don''t let courts do my thinking for me in such matters. Right now I'm impartial but tend to lean on the court case to side that it's not proper science, but that's kind of the point. If it's not science today, will it ever be tomorrow? We could debate this a lot but I think I'll pass. The point is that what can be proven begs a lot of questions. Ultimately, you can't really prove anything in science 100% because you will eventually arrive at basic axioms that cannot be proven. You can prove those axioms, but you have to totally step out of the normal system of thought to to do so, and even if you did, you would have to step out into a new system ad infinitum. So...these "proofs" must ultimately be taken upon faith, ironically. We only call things "fact" and "proven" when it's well established empirically. But sometimes something can happen that makes a mess of the empiricism like parallel univeses or quantum mechanics. I mean, like say a chemical type of reaction goes on smoothly like it's supposed to in all the universes that lead up to this current one. But you eventually come across a universe where you spontaneously get cold fusion. Can it be proven the cold fusion in our universe wasn't a rare instance of one of these weird quantum hick-ups for example? Guess the point is that science cannot be proven absolutely 100%. Not sure where I was going with that actually (lol). Can't see what it has to do with dogma now. (Maybe my brain just had one of those weird quantum hick-ups. Lol.)

"Typical chemotherapy amounts to sorcery because it doesn't work and it often reduces the quality of life"

******************************­******************************­*

Gee, Patrick, I know quite a few people who have survived cancer through chemotherapy and have gone on to live very happy lives. There are forests of studies - rational thought and empirical evidence up the wazoo - to back this up. As someone who is living a far longer, healthier and productive life thanks to chemo for a non-cancer illness, I'm happy to agree that my quality of life was temporarily shot to hell, but well worth the misery. It's dishonest and unfair to lump real science in with UFO's.

The largest longitudinal study regarding cancer survivors published a few years ago showed a dramatically higher survival rate and higher quality of life for those who dealt with a variety of cancers with Western medicine. As a matter of fact, those who made other choices were likely to die sooner AND leave behind more financial wreckage for their families to deal with after their death. Pretty dramatic.

Not everyone survives serious illnesses like cancer, but every year there are folks surviving cancers and other diseases that were death sentences just 10 years ago. It's no fun to sweep hair off the bed, off the floor, off the dogs, out of refrigerator and even off the ceiling...but it beats the hell out of dying!

Freedom Lady:

"It's no fun to sweep hair off the bed, off the floor, off the dogs, out of refrigerator and even off the ceiling...but it beats the hell out of dying!

I don't think any of us knows if that's true or not, but I'm not anxious to test the theory anytime soon...

The set of SETI <> the set of UFOlogists.

Patrick:

However, if it means anything, the trademark probably belongs to a different field, but I haven't studied much of it. Have you? Or are you just rehashing typical belief systems?

In order to counter claims made by cdesign proponentsists, yes, I have had to study these claims and research how they are debunked.

And...sometimes science postulates things that can't be proven too, like parallel universes. What cannot be proven and what can is not a litmus test for science. Parallel universes can't be proven, yet it's science.

What do you mean here by "yet it's science"? Do you propose that theories involving parallel universes are treated with the same trust and credibility as, say, the theory of relativity? As I see here, one prominent example, the Many-Worlds interpretation, is called an 'interpretation' and not a theory for a reason -- while some of its proponents contend it can make testable predictions and thus should be called a theory. In that light, the idea seems to be given as much credit as it's due. Likewise for M-theory or the brane world, these ideas propose testable predictions and so they're more than just postulates.

BTW, if you're going to talk postulates and such and quibble over what science can and can't do, you should already know that scientific theories don't 'prove' anything. Proof is the purview of mathematics.

So...there's no reason to automatically dismiss the trademark Intelligent Design as non-science by the same token. It's too quick to judge; must people who say such things don't know much of the details of ID but dismiss it out of contempt for Christians or because it's easier than arguing in it's defense. Or...they use the "short cut" and just lean upon some court ruling that announced it as "non-science". But I don''t let courts do my thinking for me in such matters. Right now I'm impartial but tend to lean on the court case to side that it's not proper science, but that's kind of the point. If it's not science today, will it ever be tomorrow? We could debate this a lot but I think I'll pass.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case isn't merely leaned upon like a crutch or an argument from authority, the way xians use such fallacious rhetoric to back up their claims, Patrick. The court case is useful because it establishes facts and evidence supporting the assertion that ID is not science, but repackaged religion. Moreover, neither the court nor I has to do your thinking for you. The evidence is laid out there for you to examine. You can follow the line of reasoning to its conclusion. Here's an example.

Eric Rothschild gave the opening statement for the plaintiffs. He said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a "little" constitutional violation. He also provided the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

He compared this with what was eventually published:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

(The definitions had come up in an earlier hearing in a July 14 pre-trial hearing.[8]) He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy but rather was not science at all.

What thinking are they asking you to do here, Patrick? Is it difficult to see how the words 'intelligent design' are merely substituted for 'creation' here? Is it hard to see from the cdesign proponentsists typo from the same book that 'design proponent' was simply the more palatable label to swap in for 'creationist'?

Scientists continue to look for ID proponents to propose a theory, to make testable predictions, to test them, to submit their research for peer review. Instead, ID proponents avoid the peer review process, or try to sidestep it, or try to take over organizations and publications to subvert the process yet retain the veneer of scientific credibility. For it to ever be taken seriously, for it to 'become science tomorrow' ID proponents will have to abandon this deceptive, underhanded approach.

The point is that what can be proven begs a lot of questions. Ultimately, you can't really prove anything in science 100% because you will eventually arrive at basic axioms that cannot be proven. You can prove those axioms, but you have to totally step out of the normal system of thought to to do so, and even if you did, you would have to step out into a new system ad infinitum. So...these "proofs" must ultimately be taken upon faith, ironically. We only call things "fact" and "proven" when it's well established empirically.

No, actually, you use 'proven' because you evidently don't know any better. This is why I ask for credible evidence that can withstand scrutiny instead of 'proof.' In the end, there is some trust one has to place in the evidence of one's senses, but in this the skeptic and the believer are no different. I realize that believers often try to equate this with their faith in a god-concept, but this additional article of faith is unnecessary to explain phenomena. That you confuse 'fact' with 'proof' is just poor knowledge of English.

But sometimes something can happen that makes a mess of the empiricism like parallel univeses or quantum mechanics. I mean, like say a chemical type of reaction goes on smoothly like it's supposed to in all the universes that lead up to this current one. But you eventually come across a universe where you spontaneously get cold fusion. Can it be proven the cold fusion in our universe wasn't a rare instance of one of these weird quantum hick-ups for example? Guess the point is that science cannot be proven absolutely 100%. Not sure where I was going with that actually (lol). Can't see what it has to do with dogma now. (Maybe my brain just had one of those weird quantum hick-ups. Lol.)

Yeah, I think I'll just let that stream of incoherence speak for itself. :)

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution will continue to be put to use. It proposes to explain phenomena, it makes predictions we can test, it stands or falls on its own merit. Evolution is what allowed scientists to discover Tiktaalik -- they knew where to look, what to expect, what features to look for. Whereas ID, well, it is what it is; it's creationism in disguise, and its proponents spend their time attacking science, not doing science.