Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9042 total)
362 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,150 Year: 3,796/14,102 Month: 101/315 Week: 101/131 Day: 22/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID a right wing conspiracy?
mick
Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 1 of 76 (213099)
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


Proponents of ID argue that the design paradigm offers us a useful way of understanding the natural world, that the design paradigm applies just as much to the biological world as to any other area of science, and that schoolteachers should not refuse to teach it as an alternative to Darwinian natural selection just because it can be interpreted in a religious manner.

Opponents of ID argue that ID is actually a conspiracy to avoid consitutional objections to the official establishment of religion. They argue that proponents of ID are motivated by religious and political inclinations that have no place in the classroom. Furthermore, analysts such as Professor Paul Gross have argued that the ID movement is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

The position of Professor Gross is backed up by the wedge document, authored by the Discovery Institute, which positions ID as a challenge to the "the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it". In other words, proponents of ID at the Discovery Institute are not concerned with biology per se, but see an attack on Darwinism as the first step in a more general attack on materialistic society and an attempt to replace that society with one based upon "conservative-Christan" moral norms.

Although the Discovery Institute describes itself as a "non-partisan" thinktank, it's programs in fields other than biology appear to be toward the right of politics. They are concerned with promoting "economic growth" and freeing economic growth from "the burdens of undue government regulation", "by limiting tax and regulatory barriers to businesses and individuals".

Does anybody have any solid evidence that ID is a right wing conspiracy? Who pays for the Discovery Institute and for ARN? Was ID explicitly invented as a way of avoiding the constitutional limitation on the establishment of religion, and if so, where was it invented, when, and by whom?

When proponents of ID claim that Darwinist scientists are part of conspiracy to prevent valid ID research being published, we generally ask for evidence that the conspiracy exists. Now it is time for the tables to be turned.

Are evolutionary biologists just being paranoid, or inventing the idea of a conspiracy for political or psychological purposes? Or is there any real documentary evidence, over and above the wedge document, of ID as a right wing conspiracy that was invented with a specific political aim?

Mick

This message has been edited by mick, 06-01-2005 01:21 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Clark, posted 06-01-2005 1:25 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 4 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-01-2005 8:17 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:42 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 9 by kjsimons, posted 08-02-2005 8:55 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 11:33 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 08-02-2005 6:02 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 38 by sleikind, posted 08-04-2005 12:43 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 08-20-2005 8:33 PM mick has responded
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 08-23-2005 3:43 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Springer, posted 09-30-2005 2:21 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12720
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 76 (213104)
06-01-2005 1:21 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 76 (213111)
06-01-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


This guy, among others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

He's connected to Christian Reconstructionism which is a fairly scary concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 08-01-2005 8:33 PM Clark has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 4 of 76 (228599)
08-01-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


mick writes:

Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

No. It's merely a concept that's about 0.1% more specific than: "Someone did some thing at some time."

Now, it appears that a certain subset of Christians is using ID to further their agenda, as they're not above 'lying for Jesus'. I do find it preferable to the historic method of furthering the Christian agenda: 'killing anyone who disagrees'.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-01-2005 08:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 5 of 76 (228601)
08-01-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Clark
06-01-2005 1:25 PM


Clark links to:

quote:
He is somewhat reclusive and suffers from Tourette's syndrome; his wife usually makes announcements for him.

I sympathize with his disorder, but I cannot help envisioning him obscenely ranting about evolutionists to a shocked but galvanized congregation: could be the roots of a conspiracy right there ;)

On a more serious note, conspiracy doesn't seem the right word. I think most creationists believe what they say, and the Christian Right's intention of forcing their beliefs on the rest of us is no secret.

"Scheme" might be a better fit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Clark, posted 06-01-2005 1:25 PM Clark has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 76 (228651)
08-02-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

I keep hearing about how the Wedge document is evidence that IDers are political, but evolutionists fail to recognize that the Wedge document is simply responding to evolutionists and materialists existing social/political/quasi-religious status.

The insistence that we are purely material, and by material, I mean an outdated concept of "material", a Newtonian version already outdated by QM, is a fundamentally religious, social, and political claim of materialists, and the Wedge document is quite right to assert this is a false application of science.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID).

I see where materialists in their paradigm see this as a politicized religious attack, but they need to take a step back and consider which side has used the courts to silence it's critics, evolutionists.

The history of evolutionism has indeed been social, political, religious, and thus necessitated this type of correction.

Imo though, the real issue is that materialists view of what constitutes "material" is outdated.

There really is no more need to bash materialist thinking since quantum physics principles already have turned that world upside down. That's how I see it.

But either way, to insist that we are only physical, according to outdated concepts of "physical", simply because we lacked the technology to delve into quantum physics and spiritual realms, imo, is a major error of materialists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 7:11 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 8:06 AM randman has responded
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-02-2005 8:04 PM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 76 (228701)
08-02-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-02-2005 1:42 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
I keep hearing about how the Wedge document is evidence that IDers are political, but evolutionists fail to recognize that the Wedge document is simply responding to evolutionists and materialists existing social/political/quasi-religious status.

Ah, well then, I'm sure you'll be able to link to the evolutionist Wedge document. So why don't you go ahead and do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:42 AM randman has not yet responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 5364 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 8 of 76 (228720)
08-02-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-02-2005 1:42 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
I see where materialists in their paradigm see this as a politicized religious attack, but they need to take a step back and consider which side has used the courts to silence it's critics, evolutionists.

The issue has gotten into the courts because the creationist side has insisted on using their idiosyncratic pseudoscientific views as a vehicle to inject their idiosyncratic religious views into public schools. This is unconstitutional.

Creationists are as free as anyone else to not only found private schools, but do something else that should be obvious, if their views had scientific merit: Start their own program of applied science, funded by religious donations.

Where is the ID based medical research institute that has produced new drugs or treatments for infectious disease based on applied ID principles?

Where is the YEC oil company that has discovered new reserves using YEC geology?

Such entities don't exist. Because the "science" doesn't work and has no practical applications. The only thing the DI and ICR have ever produced is polemics. No science, no technology.

There really is no more need to bash materialist thinking since quantum physics principles already have turned that world upside down. That's how I see it.

QM deals with physical entities like metals, nuclei, quarks, etc. and has been verified by experimentation with physical systems, so I don't see how it helps your case. It is an entirely physical theory.

If anything, it hurts your case. You make a strawman arguemnt against Newtonian deterministic materialism using QM ? It even more strongly refutes the 18th century notions of a need for a "divine watchmaker", by demonstrating that the physical universe has more than enough indeterminacy to accomodate something like evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:42 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by brainpan, posted 08-03-2005 12:34 AM paisano has not yet responded
 Message 17 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 1:00 AM paisano has responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 728
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 9 of 76 (228753)
08-02-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


Impeach Bush
Well it appears that the Shrub wants ID taught in the classroom and he is definitly right leaning and for a more theistic government and country. I don't know if Bush's push for it is organized enough to be called a conspiracy but it is disconcerting to me that our president is pushing for educating the children of America in the pseudo science that is ID.

http://www.wftv.com/education/4797556/detail.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 10 of 76 (228814)
08-02-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


I wouldn't say that ID is a Right Wing Conspiracy, and actually have very little problem having ID explored in schools. Even a cursory glance at what we find around us would lead to the conclusion that ID stands for Incompetent Design.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 12:53 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 11 of 76 (228942)
08-02-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-01-2005 1:16 PM


I certainly don't think it's a true conspiracy, per se.

I think Creationists want their perspective to be taught to their kids in public schools in science class. This helps prevent any secular education from interfering with religious indoctrination, and keeps the parents from needing to have the evolution vs. creation debate at home.

Intelligent Design is Creationism-lite. It's the exact same thing, just without specifically naming the Judeo-Christian God. It also has absolutely no scientific merit - it simply says "stuff is too complicated, so God did it." No mechanism, no description of how things came to be. Just a simple "I can't understand it by examining it for a few minutes, so I'll just say God did it."

They think that, because it doesn't specifically identify itself with a particular religion, they can slip it in past the seperation of church and state. But it's still not science. It doesn't propose a mechanism. It isn't testable. It's even founded on a logical disconnect - no reason is ever given as to why complex structures need to be designed.

This is why there is controversy - Creationists want their Bible-lite in the public science classroom. Scientists foam at the mouth and sputter with incredulity at the thought of allowing something that is blatantly NOT science to be taught in a science classroom.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, though. There are some vocal proponents (like Bush), but I still think the major push comes from everyday Creationists who simply want their perspective taught in the classroom.

If it wasn't the same as teaching kids something like:

The giant flying spaghetti monster created the Earth in three hours last Thursday because the world is so complex only spaghetti can explain it

then I wouldn't have an issue. But only science belongs in a science classroom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-01-2005 1:16 PM mick has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 12 of 76 (228972)
08-02-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
08-02-2005 1:42 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
randman writes:

I keep hearing about how the Wedge document is evidence that IDers are political, but evolutionists fail to recognize that the Wedge document is simply responding to evolutionists and materialists existing social/political/quasi-religious status.

The insistence that we are purely material, and by material, I mean an outdated concept of "material", a Newtonian version already outdated by QM, is a fundamentally religious, social, and political claim of materialists, and the Wedge document is quite right to assert this is a false application of science.

Using Occam's Razor is not religious, social, or political.
For example, the 6 invisible pixies that are pushing on the front of my car, and the 6 invisible pixies that are pushing equally hard on the back of my car, get cut by the Razor. They're unneeded additional entities. I'm not saying that they're not there -- I'm simply saying that it doesn't matter. Their existence is irrelevant. That's not a religious, political, or social claim -- it's merely the truth.
If we find an area in which the invisible pixies actually affect something, their existence becomes relevant. Again, that would not be a religious, political, or social claim -- it'd merely be the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:42 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by brainpan, posted 08-03-2005 12:15 AM DominionSeraph has responded
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 12:52 AM DominionSeraph has responded

  
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 76 (229009)
08-03-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DominionSeraph
08-02-2005 8:04 PM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
ID is definitely a conspiracy. ID was created, or intelligently designed, by a small group of Christians as a political movement to introduce religious philosophy into public science classes. Nothing about it can be condoned, or tacitly excused. The good intentions of many mislead Christians aside, ID is as dishonest as a movement could possibly be. In conclusion, it might be fun to just laugh at ID, but the danger posed by the conspiracy should not be underestimated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-02-2005 8:04 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-03-2005 4:17 AM brainpan has responded

  
brainpan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 76 (229016)
08-03-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano
08-02-2005 8:06 AM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
Paisano wrote:
You make a strawman arguemnt against Newtonian deterministic materialism using QM ? It even more strongly refutes the 18th century notions of a need for a "divine watchmaker", by demonstrating that the physical universe has more than enough indeterminacy to accomodate something like evolution.

Good point. Since the name Newton came up, let me add an ironic twist that Newton did just what ID wants modern scientists to do with gaps in knowledge. When Newton couldnt completely explain apparent irregularities in the orbits of planets, he allowed God to step in and nudge them into their "proper" orders. Then that damn "materialist" Einstein came up with some ideas, "only theories" of course, that largely solved the problems Newton encountered.

Im sure God was pretty pissed, because Newton put him in charge of pushing the planets a long time ago, and he had been doing a great job of it. It wasnt respectful to force God to scuttle off like that to other dark places like the "improbability of abiogenesis."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 8:06 AM paisano has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 76 (229018)
08-03-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DominionSeraph
08-02-2005 8:04 PM


Re: What's wrong with the Wedge doc?
The breakdown here is the assumption that physical existence, and design are functionally self-existent.

Btw, just as an aside not germane to your point, the use of Occam's Razor in an argument is totally unimpressive. The appeal to Occam's Razor is incredibly over-used, and equally meaningless, but it's not really necessary to make your point so I am not trying to slam your idea for the appeal.

It's just, like, you know, awesome, excellent, dude, whatever....

Pet peeve here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-02-2005 8:04 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-03-2005 4:54 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2005 8:15 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021