Sad about the abuse of the uninformed and unintelligent
I just listened to the Kansas 2005 hearings that preceded the Kansas evolution trials. It generally saddened me. Proponents of Intelligent Design (a modern revision of William Paley's teleological argument used to promote christian fundamentalist ideas of the beginning of the world) openly lied about their intent in the school board. They pretended that there was a "controversy" amongst scientists about major aspects of evolution when in fact there is none. Worse yet, they pretended like the only alternative was ID. Worse still, they are ashamed and unable to admit that the reason they won't explain who the intelligent creator is, is because they believe that it is exclusively their personal creator and savior, Jesus Christ. These people hate Jews, Muslims, other non-christians, christians not in their sect (catholics, mormons, any non protestant evangelicals) and pretend that they do not in order to promote their cause. It is said that they have so much hate, and sad that they deny it to server their ends. It is overall sad to me that they don't care who is hurt to meet their goals. They will take taxpayer money, and they will speak falsely. I think there are many christians out there that simply don't know enough to know that they are being lied to. New proponent of ID are acquiring degrees and publishing papers in journals unrelated to the studies of the particular topics that they are against. They then misrepresent the data and that they know about evolutionary theory.
This is mostly sad because it creates a dishonest dialogue. Though I'm not a christian and resent many christian tenants, and though I understand that much of christian reasoning is simply wrong, I have no desire to lie to them to make a point. Each christian is a person and may have emotional experiences that I have not experienced. Furthermore, they have intrinsic worth as sentient and potentially caring and contributing people. There will be exceptions of course, but this applies to people generally and not to any particular creed or group. Unfortunately, the well-educated people associated with ID lie to their followers. What they should say is that evolution and cosmology are the best natural explanations out there and that these explanations have not answered all of the questions of life and do not claim to do so. They should also say that religious ideas don't are not scientific and don't explain with evidence but with faith, subjective value, and desire. What's important about these faith-based versions is that they give people intrinsic worth.
Though the scientist are correct that ID is an insidious lie that attempts to frame a fundamentalist faction of christianity as if it were science, they do harm to the overall cause of rationality and tolerance as far as public perception goes.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science advocates the view that science and religion are compatible. This is a partially true and misleading idea. I only partially agree with this view and I wholly degree with what I believe is the reasoning behind it. If a religious person has beliefs about origins and science contradicts these beliefs, which is a problem for the religious person! Importantly, the problem is that:
The religious person's views are invalidated, which may make them feel hurt, stupid, embarrassed, angry, unlikely to follow science, or simply make them feel less important. They are not less important in that their misunderstanding of the origins of the world doesn't detract from their personal integrity in relationships, their dedication to helping others or any other things that they may have done for positive effect.
The problem is that the scientists pretend like evolution and cosmology don't conflict with religion when they in fact do conflict with most people's religion. It is true that the theistic evolutionists worship and god that has been relegated to a deistic box lying somewhere behind natural forces. The person behind these views still has personal worth however, but not out of respect for their beliefs.
Science aims to explain the natural world. It should do so unapologetically. It may hurt the feelings and pride of people who believe differently, but it should not apologize for the mistaken ideas of ignorant people. Instead, it should be sympathetic to their real concerns, which are their personal worth after being confronted with evidence that contradicts their worldview.
Science needs to continue to explore any questions about the natural world. If it's claims seem to impinge on those of supernatural proponents, it is not that scientists are supernaturalists, it is only that supernaturalists have mistakenly claimed natural things as supernatural. We cannot conflate this overlap as an issue of church state separation just because it hurts a religion's integrity. If the integrity of a religious idea is hurt, it is probably a sign that the idea lacked integrity and claimed only followers, and
This is mostly sad because it creates a dishonest dialogue. Though I'm not a christian and resent many christian tenants, and though I understand that much of christian reasoning is simply wrong, I have no desire to lie to them to make a point. Each christian is a person and may have emotional experiences that I have not experienced. Furthermore, they have intrinsic worth as sentient and potentially caring and contributing people. There will be exceptions of course, but this applies to people generally and not to any particular creed or group. Unfortunately, the well-educated people associated with ID lie to their followers. What they should say is that evolution and cosmology are the best natural explanations out there and that these explanations have not answered all of the questions of life and do not claim to do so. They should also say that religious ideas don't are not scientific and don't explain with evidence but with faith, subjective value, and desire. What's important about these faith-based versions is that they give people intrinsic worth.
Though the scientist are correct that ID is an insidious lie that attempts to frame a fundamentalist faction of christianity as if it were science, they do harm to the overall cause of rationality and tolerance as far as public perception goes.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science advocates the view that science and religion are compatible. This is a partially true and misleading idea. I only partially agree with this view and I wholly degree with what I believe is the reasoning behind it. If a religious person has beliefs about origins and science contradicts these beliefs, which is a problem for the religious person! Importantly, the problem is that:
The religious person's views are invalidated, which may make them feel hurt, stupid, embarrassed, angry, unlikely to follow science, or simply make them feel less important. They are not less important in that their misunderstanding of the origins of the world doesn't detract from their personal integrity in relationships, their dedication to helping others or any other things that they may have done for positive effect.
The problem is that the scientists pretend like evolution and cosmology don't conflict with religion when they in fact do conflict with most people's religion. It is true that the theistic evolutionists worship and god that has been relegated to a deistic box lying somewhere behind natural forces. The person behind these views still has personal worth however, but not out of respect for their beliefs.
Science aims to explain the natural world. It should do so unapologetically. It may hurt the feelings and pride of people who believe differently, but it should not apologize for the mistaken ideas of ignorant people. Instead, it should be sympathetic to their real concerns, which are their personal worth after being confronted with evidence that contradicts their worldview.
Science needs to continue to explore any questions about the natural world. If it's claims seem to impinge on those of supernatural proponents, it is not that scientists are supernaturalists, it is only that supernaturalists have mistakenly claimed natural things as supernatural. We cannot conflate this overlap as an issue of church state separation just because it hurts a religion's integrity. If the integrity of a religious idea is hurt, it is probably a sign that the idea lacked integrity and claimed only followers, and