How much do atheists know about intelligent design?

[-Fran-]

Well, idiocy is a unversal constant, so I am not surprised to find some Creto-orgs in Sweden.

No, me neither. That there's more or less nutty religious people in Sweden, that's nothing new I've met quite a few. But I've always thought that they were marginalised enough, as individuals or groups, not to have any particular influence on society as a whole. Not even Livets Ord or Knutby have had the influence that some groups in the USA seems to have, if you are to believe what you read on the net (though it's hard to know for sure what it is really like when you are not there).

The biggest danger (to be a bit melodramatic) does not seem to be the introduction of creto-"science" or ID in public school, but more of having the so called "confessional" (is that properly translated?) private schools peddling YECism, and similar garbage.

I agree. The development of these schools have worried me a bit as well.

And no, they're quite, quite unnoticed these people for the most part. I learned about Mats Molén when working at TietoEnator, seing one of his books in the public library thingy (basically, the company set up some space, and gave some money for book purchases, as well as allowing people to donate books for this "library". Someone donated Ljugar-Mats' book and I became aware of organised crationism in Sweden =))

They must be rather unnoticed, yes. I admit I haven't done any research on Swedish creationists in particular. I know more about the American ones, because articles and forum posts about them pops up regularly when you read about religion and woo in general. I follow the usual news media here on a (usually) daily basis, in much the same way that any ordinary swede does, I suppose, and have never heard of these people. So I guess for people in general they will go rather unnoticed, yeah (at least I hope so).

 

[Complexity]

I'm sure it varies by individual.

Next time, state your opinion rather than ask silly questions.

 

[sthomson]

I agree with everything you said there, so I don't know why you disagree with something I said. ID is not a theory. At best, it's an attempt to falsify the Theory of Evolution by finding something that can't possibly have happened naturally and gradually.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. You said "until someone finds something that doesn't fit with ToE, ID should not be taught as a science". This is equivalent, in my mind, to saying "if someone finds something that doesn't fit with ToE, ID should be taught as a science". I don't agree with that statement: even if, somehow, ToE isn't a valid theory to explain our natural world, then that still wouldn't mean ID is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whereas here in good ole Mississippi I nearly had a riot in my freshman Anthro class when my prof dared announce that evolution theory would be on our exam independent of creationism (not even disguised as ID). I felt so bad for the guy. We spent two class periods discussing that, no, they didn't have to believe in evolution but, yes, they did have to memorize the theory. That's pretty thick. Then, on the flipside, I had an Anatomy and Physiology professor who was also a Pentecostal minister who used class time to promote creationism and also to tell us in no uncertain terms that if we supported stem cell research that it wouldn't be long before women would be deliberately inseminated and farmed for their unborn fetuses for the evil scientists to use for research. I was offended. Can you imagine if an atheist talked about the religious in a classroom like that?

Wow, that second guy really should be fired, I mean to taught A&P and had no idea what stem cell research uses? Better the embrios be garbage than used in that fashion I see.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

You want to be really flabbergasted, try reading the Wedge Document that spells out the aim of the Discovery Institute.

Ah yes, an insidious document that more or less spells out that biology would only be the beginning for these people:

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts

.

"Goddidit" isn't' just an intellectual dodge for these the ID/Creationism crowd, it's an ideology:

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. 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

In other words, let's ignore the uncomfortable truths that could lead us to question their Bronze Age notions of right and wrong! (Also, note the use of red baiting with non sequitur mention of Karl Marx.)

 

[Beerina]

If you scratch the paint off an IDer, you'll find a creationist. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they're one and the same.

Steve S.

Indeed, the court case uncovered a number of documents that ID as a cover story for creationism was the full intent all along by the creationist proponents of ID.

Which would be fine, if ID was legitimate, which it isn't because, as a predictive theory, it continues to fail, where evolution still shines.

The Nova special about this court case recently talks about these very issues:

ID claims "irreducible complexity" exists, then gave examples like the bacterial flagellum motor (a true rotational device), and "where is the 24th chromosome in humans, when all the other great apes have it".

Evolution predicts that there must be other intermediate forms.

Guess which one's predictions came true? The motor does have a precursor in a non-rotational poison injection device. The 24th chromosome merged with another to form a double, single chromosome, and the chemical tags from two separate chromosomes are still there!

An intellectually honest IDer would have to concede defeat at this point.

They should join the 99% of other Christians who now add the origin of the earth to the "allegory" interpretation of the Bible.

 

[sthomson]

claims "irreducible complexity" exists, then gave examples like the bacterial flagellum motor (a true rotational device), and "where is the 24th chromosome in humans, when all the other great apes have it".

Evolution predicts that there must be other intermediate forms.

Guess which one's predictions came true? The motor does have a precursor in a non-rotational poison injection device. The 24th chromosome merged with another to form a double, single chromosome, and the chemical tags from two separate chromosomes are still there!

An intellectually honest IDer would have to concede defeat at this point.

My favorite ID metaphor is Michael Behe's "Mousetrap". He presents the mousetrap, which was designed for the purposes of tricking mice into having their heads snapped off. He claims that, like the mousetrap, no part of an eyeball can work if one part is missing. Therefore, the eyeball (and the mousetrap) can not have evolved, but most have been designed this way.

What Behe refuses to acknowledge, it seems, is that each part of a mousetrap can have another purpose, and when the final component is evolved the components come together.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

there!
An intellectually honest IDer would have to concede defeat at this point.

Ahhh, but that's the problem. The IDer's aren't intellectually honest, at least not as we define the concept. Their idea of the concept of "intellectual honesty" allows them to move the goalposts and fudge their "evidence" as long as it's done in the name of their religion, without which we'd all be genocidal, rapacious, Communists... or so we're told.

 

[blutoski]

We have a federal cabinet minister who believes it and has even administered a "school" where it was taught.

http://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/conference2005/stock%20day.jpg

We are not immune.

It's certainly an American export, though. Canada's got resistance in part from the fact that our dominant religion is Catholicism, and ID is a largely Protestant phenomenon.

As a result, ID is bigger out West, in BC and Alberta, which are the two provinces where Protestantism dominates.

Having said that, the most hard-core Creationists (as opposed to IDers) are the Moslem and Sikh communities, which can be quite defensive about it.



The ID thing is pretty weak in Canada overall, though. We (BCSkeptics) hosted a debate about a year ago, and it was a bit of a wash. The IDer turned out to be a Young Earth Creation Science guy instead - he didn't seem to really understand the difference between BL, CS, and ID - and our evolution guy was not expecting a Bible debate. We basically provided a stage and audience for a sermon.

 

[KateHL]

Wow, that second guy really should be fired, I mean to taught A&P and had no idea what stem cell research uses? Better the embrios be garbage than used in that fashion I see.

When I suggested umbilical cords could be used instead of aborted fetuses he snapped back it would only be a matter of time before we had those fetus farms. I was going to report him not only because of the religion thing but because I was taking A & P as a precursor to nursing school and kind of really needed to know the material and he used the majority of class time to preach his bias. I didn't, though, when I discovered how close he was with the nursing professors (most of whom are also very religious). I didn't really want to burn those bridges.

 

[sophia8]

I've often wondered if IDers ever try to explain just how Goddidit. Did He deliberately engineer chromosomes to create what was needed; if so - how?
Or did he think "Lemme see - rivers on the Pacific coast of Australia - haven't got any major aquatic mammals there yet. Ah yes, this funny duck-billed egg-laying creature I've just created will do very nicely there, I think!"

 

[Jimbo07]

I think you are right. I think the reason I didn't really know anything about ID was because it's essentially a non-issue in Canada.

The atheist war just doesn't seem to be as much of a big deal up here. Nobody cares if you're an atheist (or Satanist, Discordian or Ed help you... an Xian)!

I've heard multiple different creation myths and even philosophies, and am okay with some, but ID is none of the above.

It is a largely (except for copycats, I'd say distinctly) American political enterprise. ID disgusts me.

 

[Olowkow]

The question is: "How much do ID'ers know about intelligent design?"
This will enlighten you. Grab a cup of coffe and learn all you need to know:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

 

[Abe_the_Man]

Well thanks everyone for the info. My curiosity has been sated. It seems to depend largely on what is big in your local media whether you know much about ID or not.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I'm sure it varies by individual.

Next time, state your opinion rather than ask silly questions.

What a welcoming way to treat a new poster. I don't think anyone reading his opening post was going to be confused for a moment as to what he believed or what his opinion was. He had not been exposed to much info about what ID really was and asked the question of whether this was a common problem - don't see how that is a silly question.

My guess is that most people here and a large part of the population who identify themselves as athiest probably have a pretty good understanding of what ID is because it is likely to be something they have come across given that background. Many of the people they mix with are probably similar - problem is I don't think this is in any way representative.

For example, about 18 months ago I had a conversation with someone who is involved in setting education policy in Scotland at a reasonably senior level. I raised the issue of ID on the back of developments in England. He thought that ID and theistic evolution were one and the same thing and completely distinct from YEC and could not understand the concern I expressed about ID possibly being allowed in science classrooms (which it is not currently). I was able to point him in the direction of the Dover verdict and what he found convincing (and he was stunned by it) was the word substitution that went on in the update of Pandas.

I think is is very easy to underestimate how many people have no idea what ID is and why there is a problem allowing it in schools - the guy I was talking to was intelligent, committed and very professional, but he knew literally nothing about the background to ID.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think is is very easy to underestimate how many people have no idea what ID is and why there is a problem allowing it in schools - the guy I was talking to was intelligent, committed and very professional, but he knew literally nothing about the background to ID.

This implies that there are people who do not realize that the debates about what should be taught in public schools are quite often politically motivated. If you know that, then you go do some research into the background of the proposals for new material, in order to learn the political backstory. Witness DARE, sexual harrassment classes, ID, various postmodern-ish ideas, global warming, nuclear energy modules, etc. This is not to say that these things are all bad, but there are political motivations.

(Tokie would be proud of me.)

~~ Paul

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This implies that there are people who do not realize that the debates about what should be taught in public schools are quite often politically motivated. If you know that, then you go do some research into the background of the proposals for new material, in order to learn the political backstory. Witness DARE, sexual harrassment classes, ID, various postmodern-ish ideas, global warming, nuclear energy modules, etc. This is not to say that these things are all bad, but there are political motivations.

(Tokie would be proud of me.)

~~ Paul

To be fair, ID has been and remains a non issue as far as Scottish schools are concerned. It is simply not on the agenda, so it is perfectly reasonable for him not to have done any research about the motivations behind those pushing it, because nobody (or at least nobody with the remotest degree of influence) is doing so.

 

[CapelDodger]

I would expect that a large majority of evolutionists do know how that the ID Theory is quite silly.

I imagine most creationists think ID quite silly, but they keep quiet about it. That's Rule One when you're inside a Trojan Horse.

The whole "Wedge" thing was a very loud sneeze, but they think they've got away with it ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Well thanks everyone for the info. My curiosity has been sated. It seems to depend largely on what is big in your local media whether you know much about ID or not.

Most people only know about what's important to them, and in the main ID isn't important. We here - and I do include you - are a self-selected bunch. And why not?

I knew about the Monkey Trial before I heard about a modern creationism movement, so I was pretty startled by it myself. I'd rather assumed that ass had been definitively kicked. Naive, but hey, I was young. Thatcher I was ready for. Nothing prepared me for Reagan.

 

[CapelDodger]

This implies that there are people who do not realize that the debates about what should be taught in public schools are quite often politically motivated.

Education is such a crucial social tool that this is inevitable. Even having a public education system is a political decision, let alone what it's for. Is it to be liberal (equipping society/economy with skills it needs in a challenging world) or Jesuitical (turning out unchallenging citizens)? More likely a mix of both, and there's the rub.