Sunday, March 06, 2005

I Meant to Do That

James C. Dietz, a man pushing his religious beliefs gets caught in the Intelligent Design is not religion lie. Now, the first level of lie or I shall just say rhetorical misrepresentation comes from the mention of his religious website: It is not so much a bible thumping site as it is just a philosophers take on why he is religious. His website reads like a text book philosophical argument on the existence of "God" (presumably the Christian God). For all I know he wrote a text on the subject. He uses the 'logical' tactics of emotion, presumption, perspective and circular reasoning to establish his views. Fine, I have no problem with that.

What he does though in his column is just sad. He tries to say that the basis for ID is not religious. This is where he is just either lying or fooling himself. He says:
I believe that most proponents of intelligent design accept the fact that biological organisms evolved and continue to evolve over time. The difference is that they have observed and accepted the evidence for sophisticated design parameters being introduced into the biological systems of all organisms. They believe that intelligent design parameters have been and, in limited ways, continue to be introduced into the evolution of biological organisms.
Now, first I disagree that most ID proponents believe in evolution as the original of human life. They make accept it for non-humans, but they don't like thinking they are related to apes.

Secondly, he is trying to scientific terms like "observed" and "evidence" and fails to inject his emotional assumptions and false presumptions. The concept of design is a human one. We see form, shape, and structures as something that can't happen unless someone made it. He also has arbitrarily determined what a "design" constitutes. He like sees something that happened and assumes, because he fits his religious beliefs, that what happened, how it looks, acts, and is structured must have been designed by someone for some purpose.

What he is doing is nothing different than if while tripped over my own feet, stumble, and manage to twirl in the air and land on the my feet and then claim, "I meant to do that."

ID is based on philosophy, so why Mr. Dietz is promoting it is not a surprise. The fact that he is pushing it is also another reason to support the fact that he is doing it for religious reasons. Why does he want it taught in Science class? It is not science. If he wants the concept discussed in philosophy class any time the origin of life is debated, then I say fine. Otherwise, no, keep philosophy out of science class.

Mr. Deitz might be surprised to know that there is far more to evolution than Darwin, but when you need a whipping boy, Chuck Darwin is the choice of all honest religious zealots.

I am getting a bit sick of this topic though. Why is the editorial page pushing this issue? I think in the last few months they have had at least 5 if not more guest columns or editorials on ID/creationism and or evolution. The issue is only fodder for religious extremists. Either someone on the Enquirer Editorial Board is fundamentalist/evangelical Young Earth bible thumper, or they view that Demographic as a hot desired market they need to cater towards.

Also, big reason why ID is religious takes form with the concept of a supernatural entity required to have the 'power' to design life. If you believe in ID you believe in a religious concept. It may not jive directly with the various sects of Christianity, but it is religious. Belief in a supernatural creator is one of the definitions of a religion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.