Why is ID so successful?

[Robin]

Why is ID so successful.

Forget the dubious science and have a look at the main strategy of the ID movement. It is pretty simple and it is to establish the connection "Evolution=Atheism". You can see from the e-mail campaigns mentioned in this site, where a story is told of someone teaching evolution who is actually teaching atheism. You can see from the many contentions that evidence against evolution is hidden by an anti religious science establishment.

You can see how successful this strategy will be if you consider that parents voting about their school curriculum see the choice between ID and evolution by natural selection as being between religion and atheism. Go and look at adherents.com and do the math.

Unfortunately they are pretty much helped by the skeptics movement. Many vocal non-theists maintain that the mainstream theory of evolution by natural selection is incompatible with religion.

Richard Dawkins called Stephen Jay Gould a flabby coward for welcoming the Popes message on evolution and proposing a truce between science and religion. He treated the Popes words with contempt.

The atheistic community seems to regard the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate believer as the difference between an honest idiot and just an idiot.

And then they wonder why ID is making such inroads.

 

[MapMack]

You have a good point. I have always wondered why the moderates seem to be being so quiet while the radicals dominate the religious debate. They would be a much more effective counter to fundamentalism.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Ferengi rule of acquisition #104: Faith moves mountains ... of inventory

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Robin
Forget the dubious science and have a look at the main strategy of the ID movement. It is pretty simple and it is to establish the connection "Evolution=Atheism".

You seem to be saying that by being up front about their preference for natural explanations over supernatural ones, biologists are making a political error: they are playing right into the hands of ID spin doctors. Do you think it would be better for the scientific community to take steps to make its position more palatable to a semi-literate public by creating the illusion that it can accept postulates which are in fact inconsistent with its most fundamental axioms, or address questions which are, by definition, beyond the scope of its methodology?

You can see from the e-mail campaigns mentioned in this site, where a story is told of someone teaching evolution who is actually teaching atheism.

I'm curious about what such a teaching might involve.

The atheistic community seems to regard the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate believer as the difference between an honest idiot and just an idiot.

And then they wonder why ID is making such inroads.

Was there a recommendation in there somewhere? Would you consider it an adequate solution to refer to them instead as "seriously deluded" and "simply misinformed"?

 

[Robin]

You seem to be saying that by being up front about their preference for natural explanations over supernatural ones, biologists are making a political error: they are playing right into the hands of ID spin doctors. Do you think it would be better for the scientific community to take steps to make its position more palatable to a semi-literate public by creating the illusion that it can accept postulates which are in fact inconsistent with its most fundamental axioms, or address questions which are, by definition, beyond the scope of its methodology?

I can't seem to find where I have said this, perhaps you would quote the precise words I used. Do you think for example that preferring natural explanations absolutely requires calling the words of an influential church leader "obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink " when he is trying to agree with you? Do you believe that the course of evolutionary science would have been set back decades if Dawkins had simply refrained from insulting the Pope when he was conceding that evolution was not just a hypothesis?

And here is what I am talking about. There are a lot of people that are believers in some religion. That is not going to change any time soon. If you go out of your way to insult them or force them to choose between their beliefs and science then science will not be the winner.

I'm curious about what such a teaching might involve.

There was a thread about these e-mails, generally they are like this : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870901413#post1870901413 and this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870902437#post1870902437. Pretty stupid stories but quite an effective method of spreading this idea.

Was there a recommendation in there somewhere? Would you consider it an adequate solution to refer to them instead as "seriously deluded" and "simply misinformed"?

I was thinking more along the lines of not insulting them at all.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Re: Why is ID so successful? Professor Bertrand Russell's Teacup!

Why is ID so successful.

Forget the dubious science and have a look at the main strategy of the ID movement. It is pretty simple and it is to establish the connection "Evolution=Atheism". You can see from the e-mail campaigns mentioned in this site, where a story is told of someone teaching evolution who is actually teaching atheism. You can see from the many contentions that evidence against evolution is hidden by an anti religious science establishment.

You can see how successful this strategy will be if you consider that parents voting about their school curriculum see the choice between ID and evolution by natural selection as being between religion and atheism. Go and look at adherents.com and do the math.

Unfortunately they are pretty much helped by the skeptics movement. Many vocal non-theists maintain that the mainstream theory of evolution by natural selection is incompatible with religion.

Richard Dawkins called Stephen Jay Gould a flabby coward for welcoming the Popes message on evolution and proposing a truce between science and religion. He treated the Popes words with contempt.

The atheistic community seems to regard the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate believer as the difference between an honest idiot and just an idiot.

And then they wonder why ID is making such inroads.

Soderqvist1: I am agnostic regarding the scientific debate between Dawkins and Gould because the equivocal evidence confirm both, and I stubbornly refuses to support either side until further evidence disprove some of them! But it is not honest to say that science is agnostic regarding god, when it is conservative because of the principle of parsimony! I have no reason to believe that Russell's Teacup is orbiting the planet Venus, since there is no evidence for it, and for the same reason I don't believe that the god of the bible exist because there is simply no evidence for it. God is an unnecessary entity with no explanatory value, which the scientific principle of Occam' s razor has shaved off, so my stance is atheism!

 

[jjramsey]

I can think of a few reasons.

First, ID is "officially" nonreligious. It doesn't use the Bible as proof text, and the identity of the supernatural designer that the ID movement proposes is deliberately left unsaid, although everyone really knows who this designer is (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). This means that it can get past the "establishment of religion" clause in the U. S. Constitution, while the more explicitly religious "creation science" cannot.

Second, the core claim of ID, which is that the order we see in nature cannot be entirely explained by blind processes, is very intuitive. It accords with what people think is "common sense." By contrast, while the case for evolution is strong and based on a mountain of evidence, this evidence is technical and circumstantial. It is not impossible for a layman to grasp the case for evolution, but it is not trivial, either.

Third, ID looks technical and scientific, using the language of mathematics and biochemistry. It takes someone with technical knowledge to spot the flaws in various IDers' claims.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Robin
Do you believe that the course of evolutionary science would have been set back decades if Dawkins had simply refrained from insulting the Pope when he was conceding that evolution was not just a hypothesis?

The Pope was making clear what he was willing to concede, and what concessions he expected in return. Such negotiations are commonplace in the political and economic arenas in which the the Catholic church has historically been so successful, and I wonder who would deny that much important business has traditionally been conducted under the table. Rather than take to full retreat, the Catholic church would prefer to stay on the field and offer shady deals on various parcels of its former holdings, even as the very same are being overrun. Dawkins expresses his preference for the wild-eyed ("honest-to-goodness") fundamentalist who prefers to stand and defend his hopeless cause with honor.

Both the Pope and the fundamentalist make the same mistake: they think their business is with the messenger; they think that placating or defeating him will render their position secure. What they (and perhaps you as well) fail to appreciate is that they are being overrun by evidence, not by messengers.

I was thinking more along the lines of not insulting them at all.

For the fundamentalist at least, the very presence of an atheist seems to be taken as an insult.

 

[Phil]

Why is ID so successful. . . .

Desperate people grasping at the last of the many creation straws, each of which have systematically blown away or burned up under scrutiny.

It's their Hail Mary pass. And they might score a touchdown, but they won't win the game.

. . .Forget the dubious science and have a look at the main strategy of the ID movement. It is pretty simple and it is to establish the connection "Evolution=Atheism". You can see from the e-mail campaigns mentioned in this site, where a story is told of someone teaching evolution who is actually teaching atheism. You can see from the many contentions that evidence against evolution is hidden by an anti religious science establishment. . . .

What evidence against evolution? This notion cracks me up.

Yes, the evolution=atheism scenario is correct to an extent. But you see, this is just another desperate attempt by an ignorant, hard-headed set of people to force their delusions on others and to market their fantasies. They don't care about the truth as much as they hate the fact that not everyone thinks like they do, no matter how ridiculous their ideas. And this would simply be pathetic if they didn't have so much influence in some school districts in the US, not to mention higher public offices.

Also, the fact that even a hint of the evolution=atheism argument would surface in any of their minds demonstrates that ID is definitely a religious movement, when the IDers claim over and over again that it's not.

But ultimately, ID will go away. I mean, let's grant them their notions. Let's say, okay, we'll do it your way. The ID concept is so thin and so baseless, that in a short time, everything within the realm of education will grind to a halt, and even the religious will pity the ID purveyors.

. . . You can see how successful this strategy will be if you consider that parents voting about their school curriculum see the choice between ID and evolution by natural selection as being between religion and atheism. Go and look at adherents.com and do the math. . . .

Absolutely, the planet is crawling with the ignorant, the uninformed, the emotionally weak, and the stubborn. Have you been in a public place lately?

. . . Unfortunately they are pretty much helped by the skeptics movement. Many vocal non-theists maintain that the mainstream theory of evolution by natural selection is incompatible with religion. . . .

Not necessarily. They are not helped by the skeptic movement anymore than they would be helped by any opposing view. Any opposing view.

People who proclaim spurious ideas, on some level, know that their ideas are spurious. Even blind faith can't erase all doubt. And if they don't have that nugget of doubt somewhere inside themselves, they should probably be taken away and placed in a padded room.

No, these people are threatened by any challenge to their nonsense. And the truth, if it goes against their pet delusions, is even worse.

But here's the kicker: That evolution is incompatible with religion is not an opinion, it's not an opposing view, nor is it an attack on ID. It's just the way things are. On a basic level, it's analogous to arguing that the sky is not blue, and then taking it personally when someone looks up and says no, it's blue.

There are many things that are incompatible with religion, but that simple fact is not an attack on religion. It’s just the way it is.

. . . Richard Dawkins called Stephen Jay Gould a flabby coward for welcoming the Popes message on evolution and proposing a truce between science and religion. He treated the Popes words with contempt. . . .

So what? Have we not held these people in high esteem long enough? If a man is the leader of a billion people who believe in fairies, should we pollute our britches with excitement each time he has a pseudo-clear thought about science?

The religious are experts on fantasy, and if we want to be advised about fantasies, then we should absolutely heed their words and be all kissy and smoochy with them. Otherwise, who gives a damn about what they have to say concerning reality.

. . . The atheistic community seems to regard the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate believer as the difference between an honest idiot and just an idiot.

And then they wonder why ID is making such inroads.

Yes, but idiots nonetheless. Well uninformed anyway. And if not uninformed, then idiots. If not idiots, then crazies. And if not crazies, scam artists and con men.

I understand the political implications of the ID movement and the skeptics place in all this. But if it's going to be a fight, and IDers seem to be trying desperately to make it one, I say take the gloves, stand in front of the opponent, look him in the face, and be as raw and honest, and possibly mean, as you can be.

I'm not worried about insulting people or hurting their feelings. When you're dealing with a group whose ideas thrive only because of emotional ties, it's going to happen. And in my view, skeptics have been treading too lightly for too long.

 

[CplFerro]

Why is ID so successful.

Forget the dubious science and have a look at the main strategy of the ID movement. It is pretty simple and it is to establish the connection "Evolution=Atheism". You can see from the e-mail campaigns mentioned in this site, where a story is told of someone teaching evolution who is actually teaching atheism. You can see from the many contentions that evidence against evolution is hidden by an anti religious science establishment.

You can see how successful this strategy will be if you consider that parents voting about their school curriculum see the choice between ID and evolution by natural selection as being between religion and atheism. Go and look at adherents.com and do the math.

Unfortunately they are pretty much helped by the skeptics movement. Many vocal non-theists maintain that the mainstream theory of evolution by natural selection is incompatible with religion.

Richard Dawkins called Stephen Jay Gould a flabby coward for welcoming the Popes message on evolution and proposing a truce between science and religion. He treated the Popes words with contempt.

The atheistic community seems to regard the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate believer as the difference between an honest idiot and just an idiot.

And then they wonder why ID is making such inroads.

It should be clear that this is a battle of worldviews, not of science. As far as I'm concerned Darwinians are as effectively unscientific as creationists, as neither of them have ever successfully proven a universal physical principle. All Darwinism does is collect little bits of empirical evidence and endlessly debate unprovable theories, and all creationism does is point out how unsatisfying the theories are, while refusing to pony up a counter-theory.

Darwinism does indeed walk with Occam (whose "razor" principle it should be noted is not a universal physical principle, but merely a rule of thumb, and perhaps not a particularly wise one), right into the arms of Aristotle and his descendents of radical empiricism. This philosophy, perhaps better described as a form of socially induced brain damage, renders knowledge of anything resembling religion or spiritual matters (including the spiritual matter generally associated with one's own brain) impossible. All that can be known is the sense-impressions and banal mental activities. Its logical response to the idea of God is simply agnosticism, which in less romantic souls quickly metamorphoses into strong atheism.

Creationism is simply the same story, told from a different angle. Its one great understanding is that the Aristotelian paradigm Darwinianism inherited can never generate the principle of evolution it seeks. Creationism is incapable however of realising that it is /in/ the Aristotelian paradigm, which is fundamentally religiously at best gnostic, and not Christian. That is, creationist-associated "Christianity" is no different in principle than any of the gnostic heresies of the past, where the invisible powers (space aliens?) controlling the universe are absolutely unknowable, on a "higher level" than normal visible reality.

The monster can't stand its own reflection, which is why gnostic creationism hates the agnostic Darwin it sees in the mirror. Creationism/ID will only go when Aristotelianism goes, and that means tracking down Plato, wherever he's got to.

 

[Beerina]

> All Darwinism does is collect little bits of empirical evidence and
> endlessly debate unprovable theories,


Unprovable? Selective breeding has changed hundreds of species into ones that are better human-useable. Wolflike creatures into great danes and pekingese. Grass into wheat and corn. Crabapple-like fruits into gigantic apples and pears and whatnot.


You didn't think God created all those as-is, did you? And don't say "intelligent humans guided the breeding" because it is the alteration due to selective pressure for certain traits that is the part ID proponents cannot believe.

 

[CplFerro]

Who disputes microevolution? Whether it's a scientific principle or not (which I'm not sure it is), it's an indisputable phenomenon with a clear mechanism.

I'm referring to the big E, of permanent stable speciation, fish into fowl, and beyond that the biggest question, clay into cell.

 

[Iacchus]

If "God does not play dice," how does change occur, without the mechanism already set in place? Which is to say, things do not evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ...

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

[good stuff snipped]...
Yes, but idiots nonetheless. Well uninformed anyway. And if not uninformed, then idiots. If not idiots, then crazies. And if not crazies, scam artists and con men.

I understand the political implications of the ID movement and the skeptics place in all this. But if it's going to be a fight, and IDers seem to be trying desperately to make it one, I say take the gloves, stand in front of the opponent, look him in the face, and be as raw and honest, and possibly mean, as you can be.

I'm not worried about insulting people or hurting their feelings. When you're dealing with a group whose ideas thrive only because of emotional ties, it's going to happen. And in my view, skeptics have been treading too lightly for too long.

I was going to say you were going too far here...

Originally posted by Iacchus
If "God does not play dice," how does change occur, without the mechanism already set in place? Which is to say, things do not evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ...

...but I changed my mind.

 

[Iacchus]

Hey, it is very apparent that we have the appearance of evolution, however, this does not mean that's what it entails. Things do not evolve, if they are merely following an "outlined course."

 

[Gestahl]

Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

As far as I'm concerned Darwinians are as effectively unscientific as creationists, as neither of them have ever successfully proven a universal physical principle. All Darwinism does is collect little bits of empirical evidence and endlessly debate unprovable theories, and all creationism does is point out how unsatisfying the theories are, while refusing to pony up a counter-theory.

*beats head against wall*

OK, for the last time, everyone say it with me: SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT PROVEN, THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!

All science is collecting little bits of empirical evidence and endlessly debate over unprovable models that fit the evidence. The test of science is: do you do have data to support your theory, and could there exist data to falsify it?

If you want proofs, go into math.

 

[Phil]

Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

I was going to say you were going too far here...

...but I changed my mind.

Wow, I forgot I posted that. It must have been early and I wasn't fully awake yet, or late and I was drunk. [/excuses for vitriol]


Michael Shermer had a great item in this week's eSkeptic related to the subject.

A snippet:

You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature — the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever — if your answer is “God did it,” a scientist will ask, “How did God do it?, What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?” and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief. One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his creation tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: which laws and forces were used for to create specific natural phenomena, and in what matter were they used? how did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God’s recipe for, say, gravity, or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask: what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient and omnipotent being? Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature — super nature, or supernatural — and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

 

[Jon.]

Hey, it is very apparent that we have the appearance of evolution, however, this does not mean that's what it entails. Things do not evolve, if they are merely following an "outlined course."

I don't quite understand this post. You seem to be admitting that the evidence ("appearance") is in favour of evolution but then trying to say there's actually something else going on. What do you say is actually going on? And on what evidence do you say so? Is your "outlined course" some great cosmic plan designed to fool us all into thinking we evolved from lower forms when in fact it was some god's plan all along? You're getting dangerously close to last-Thursdayism here.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

I'm not worried about insulting people or hurting their feelings.

This shows that you have entirely missed my point.

So what? Have we not held these people in high esteem long enough? If a man is the leader of a billion people who believe in fairies, should we pollute our britches with excitement each time he has a pseudo-clear thought about science?

This too. Look please try to at least understand what I am saying before you comment.

Let's put it this way, you are having a debate about having ID taught as a science in your kid's school with Bob the Fundy and Alice a non-fundy Christian:

Bob: "I think we should teach ID as science in schools to give kids an alternate viewpoint"
Ted: "You are an idiot Bob"
Alice: "I agree with Ted, ID is not a science and evolution is a model with a massive amount of evidence behind it"
Ted: "You are an idiot too Alice, in fact you are ignorant, uninformed, emotionally weak and stubborn, why should I pollute my britches every time with excitement you have a pseudo clear thought about science? Why should I give a damn about anything you say concerning reality?
Bob: "If there is a massive amount of evidence behind evolution then why do it's supporters rely on emotive, insulting tactics like that. In fact you are clearly an intelligent woman Alice and I respect your opinion in this matter, but maybe can see from this debate who is the irrational one, me or Ted? I say we move for a vote."

Now do you think Ted might have handled this situation better?

All I am saying.

 

[CplFerro]

Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

*beats head against wall*

OK, for the last time, everyone say it with me: SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT PROVEN, THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!

All science is collecting little bits of empirical evidence and endlessly debate over unprovable models that fit the evidence. The test of science is: do you do have data to support your theory, and could there exist data to falsify it?

If you want proofs, go into math.

Actually, proving theories is the basis of scientific advancement. An hypothesis leads to a proof-of-principle experiment which, if successful, proves a new universal physical principle. Gravity, the least-time principle of light, the nuclear principles allowing for fission to be replicated, and so on. Surrounding these core principles are a host of theories support by unproven but compelling empirical evidence. Revolutions occur when a new principle is discovered, forcing a cleaning-house of that host of theories.