Nothing intelligent about anti Religous zealots

from JoeUser Forums
Please note, this is not an attack on Myrrander, who posted the article that inspired this one: Nothing Intelligent about 'Intelligent Design', but my tolerance for people that have absolutely no tolerance of religion in the classroom is gone.

I posted many articles in the past (linked here for example: Lets start a conversation... Church and State and...) and I've seen others such as Little_Whips currently hot topic thread on the subject as well.

The supposed progressives (using that word, rather than the L- word) among us find plenty to fume over when the topic of "intelligent design" comes up as an affront to their beloved evolutionary theories as if even the mere mention of the possibility that a higher authority may have had a role in our existence is so horrific that it cannot, nay, must not be tolerated and allowed to happen at all.

What is it about the possible existence of a higher authority that so badly rubs the feathers of these progressives the wrong way? Do the really have such an ego as to believe they must be the top of the chain, and nothing could possibly top them? If so, then how will they feel when evolution continues and in just a few generations they are looked at as idiots from the 21st century?

Honestly, I feel sorry for people that are so, hmmm, searching for the right word here, I guess "twisted" will have to do, that they can't tolerate even a hint of an opposing view to the theories of evolution.

I'm sure that back in Darwin's time, during the Scopes trial, the shoe was on the other foot, but how quickly the progressives slide into the anti-tolerance chair and start banging the gavel as if their way is the only way, the way, the truth and the light (to borrow some religious phraseology).

Ugh, I swear, my headline title theory seems to be proven again and again.
politics
15,639 views 57 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that intelligent designs place is in a philosophy course, not a science one.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think that intelligent designs place is in a philosophy course, not a science one.


... and yet in most schools, Philosophy is not a course that is available at all.

Meanwhile, teaching the theory of evolution, no matter how well grounded it is in science is ok, with absolutely no deference to those that are not willing to (as BakerStreet so aply put it) blindly follow science?

Honestly, nothing gets a progressives panties in a wad quicker than the possibility that a sticker may be included in a science book that even slightly discounts the theory of evolution. Maybe this old article will serve as a reminder: ACLU to Sue Over Pa. Evolution Debate. It was on the topic of a sticker that would have been added to text books in Pennsylvania.

Yup, again, my theory continues to be self evident and well grounded.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think that intelligent designs place is in a philosophy course, not a science one.


What is it with you guys? NOBODY has been talking about "teaching" ANYTHING of the sort. The "progressives" are the ones that started that line.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The scopes trial was a long time after Darwin, and that kind of highlights how recent most of this debate is.

To me it comes down to personal responsibility. If someone tried to foist a belief on me that effected no one but themselves, I would be fairly open to giving it a shot. What's the harm?

If, on the other hand, they tried to make me undertake a belief that effects the future of billions of people, based on what I have to accept as good science through faith in the credibility of those scientists, that's another story. Evolution in and of itself is a good way of thinking about the human past. I find most of it to be pretty palatable.

BUT, when those nihilistic aspects of it are used to discount the value of human life, and endanger it, then it is blind faith taken too far. The blind adherance to the beliefs of someone in a lab coat is no more useful than the blind faith in a man in a funny hat.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
BUT, when those nihilistic aspects of it are used to discount the value of human life, and endanger it, then it is blind faith taken too far.


I'm just curious as to how you believe evolution discounts the value of human life, or endangers it. I don't know if you were referring to evolution with this sentence, but if you were, could you elaborate?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I'm just curious as to how you believe evolution discounts the value of human life, or endangers it. I don't know if you were referring to evolution with this sentence, but if you were, could you elaborate?


I elaborated more on my own article about it, and I don't want to divert from terpfan's. I will say, though, that I think the temptation to "test and discard" is a by-product of the idea that we are all the product of such natural try-and-fail. Hitler was a huge fan of evolutionary pseudoscience.

Also, our growing nihilist view of "favored" genetics tends to make us discount those that are disadvantaged. Consider the curiosity insurance companies seem to be gaining for being able to predict who will and won't have cancer or other eventual genetic defects.

Whether we carry that to its eventual conclusion isn't based on our faith in science, but our faith in something much more personal.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whether we carry that to its eventual conclusion isn't based on our faith in science, but our faith in something much more personal.


You allude to some of the serious dangers that face us Baker...

What if somehow some religious zealot were able to gain control (Hitler style, as you mention) over peoples lifes such that genetic testing was used to prevent the birth of "liberals" (sorry Texas Wahine, had to use that word here), or gays, or individuals that were predisposed to being over-weight, or Black, or Hispanic, or any other individual characteristic, or group of characteristics?

What if theories of evolution are only partially correct, and instead of advancing we're actually devolving to some extent, and only the watered down genetic pool is left behind? Science will be right, we will have evolved, but perhaps in doing so, we'll have mixed in so many new genetic flaws that we'll eventually cause the end of civilization.

Interesting proposition for sure. The stuff of science fiction normally, but more and more it's becoming the stuff of our real life society.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Science will be right, we will have evolved, but perhaps in doing so, we'll have mixed in so many new genetic flaws that we'll eventually cause the end of civilization.


Sooo..... Intelligent Design would counter act this because.....
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Philomedy, that ID is best discussed in a Philosophy course.

However, the possibility of ID only comes up because of the scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution. And the proper place to bring up those shortcomings is in a science course.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have zero tolerance for religion in the classroom outside a philosophy class or whatever -- in public schools.  There are plenty of outlets for people to express their religious faith. 
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
the value of human life


Who came up with this idea? People who were alive. Dead people don't give a damn. It's just self-interest.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Link

"The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai means one who is jealous on behalf of God. As a word in English it means anyone who is overly zealous. Specific uses in popular culture also exist. Particular aspects can focus on religion, politics, but can also apply to any other area where partisanship and its related dogma are fostered and encouraged.

While "excess of zeal" may be used to refer to very common and individual instances of excess, "zealotry" tends to be reserved for cases where excess zeal is shared with others, and has formed or merged with a dogma; typically with ideological self-perpetuation as among its primary foundations. The espoused use of force and violence to propagate the ideology, is a common characteristic of this self-perpetuation; perhaps inline with the "ends justify the means" rationale."

Can you name one instance where the people you speak of used violence?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't make the mistake that it is only liberals or "progressives" who object to forcing schools to teach or "mention" ID as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Many of us to the right of the political spectrum are just as opposed. Not to being open to the possibility that a higher power may have had a hand in what we see and experience around us, but to having an essentially religious tenet, untestable & without any possibility of scientific evidence, let alone proof, presented as science. The false assumption and unstated message behind the need to force this issue is that evolutionary theorists & science are anti-religion when they are not. My puny mind can't begin to wrap itself around the complexity and staggering variety of things which (appear to) exist, living or otherwise, and those very characteristics of the universe we find ourselves in make me think there must be a "reason" for all of it, but that could just as easily be a self-centered deceipt - it's not very comforting to think of ourselves as "accidents" of a cold, random universe, though we may well be.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have zero tolerance for religion in the classroom outside a philosophy class or whatever -- in public schools. There are plenty of outlets for people to express their religious faith.


And yet people expect those that believe that whatever it is that we evolved from had some sort of intelligence and organization behind it to begin with should set aside those beliefs and accept completely that evolution is the end all, and be all.

That's the problem, as noted by Stutefish:

However, the possibility of ID only comes up because of the scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution. And the proper place to bring up those shortcomings is in a science course.



And /nod to Little_Whip, but with a note that this is a topic that I've been commenting on for quite a while (as noted by original articles mentioned above).
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai means one who is jealous on behalf of God. As a word in English it means anyone who is overly zealous. Specific uses in popular culture also exist. Particular aspects can focus on religion, politics, but can also apply to any other area where partisanship and its related dogma are fostered and encouraged.


See link here: Dictionary.com... see specifically number 1 b.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's not very comforting to think of ourselves as "accidents" of a cold, random universe, though we may well be.


Exactly. Just as it wasn't very comforting for some people to think that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Some people's egos need to be deflated.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
See link here: Dictionary.com... see specifically number 1 b.


Same as part of what I posted, only less verbose.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Some people's egos need to be deflated."


Oddly, I find the humanistic idea that we are as high up the ladder as it gets to be more egotistical than the assumption that there is something greater than us. No offense, Iconoclast, but after having watched your swagger in these conversations, I wouldn't preach to anyone about ego. You carry yourself as if you have some objective handle on evolution, when in reality you get your data from a book like anyone else and decide to believe what you believe just like the rest of us.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oddly, I find the humanistic idea that we are as high up the ladder as it gets to be more egotistical than the assumption that there is something greater than us


I've never said I think man has evolved as much as we're going to. I certainly hope we haven't. The assumption that there is something greater than us isn't egotistical, the belief that we're the center of the universe is.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do the really have such an ego as to believe they must be the top of the chain, and nothing could possibly top them?

That got this article an insightful!  I had never thought of it that way, but you are entirely correct.

Such egotism by these people.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sooo..... Intelligent Design would counter act this because.....

Sushi, you miss the point.  ID is not a counter act of anything.  But the quashing of it is the demonstration of the point.  If ID is so threatening to the progressives, then it is they who are the church of the middle ages, and ID is only Galileo trying to be heard.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do I win a prize for the most spin-off articles? I think I've counted 5 so far...

You do have that effect!  Sushi was the previous record holder, now you are Queen of Spin offs!

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

I've never said I think man has evolved as much as we're going to. I certainly hope we haven't. The assumption that there is something greater than us isn't egotistical, the belief that we're the center of the universe is.

Then by extension, the beleif that we are all knowing is also akin to us being the center of the universe.  So that those who dismiss hypothesis out of hand, are guilty of the very sin they pretend to rail against.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do the really have such an ego as to believe they must be the top of the chain, and nothing could possibly top them? If so, then how will they feel when evolution continues and in just a few generations they are looked at as idiots from the 21st century?


I don't think anyone is saying that only those who believe in evolution are the top of the chain (except you). ALL Humans are the top of the chain. No other creature hunts us for food. (some humans do, but I digest.) Those who might look at us as idiots from the 21st century will only be other humans who will most likely still be at the top of the chain. Believing we're the top of the chain is not the same as believing we're the center of the universe, or that we are all-knowing.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then by extension, the beleif that we are all knowing is also akin to us being the center of the universe.


By "center of the universe" I meant the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.