Faith of the Faithless: Why fundamentalists push for Intelligent Design

[Karmadillo]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=76&ItemID=8426

<edit>

What would Jesus do? Why, lecture the poor, of course, after lobbying for tax cuts. He was famous for both. But as bad as that is, and as much as I've now spent a few paragraphs on it, that is not actually the focus of my thoughts this day.

Rather, I am speaking now of those whose actions seem to imply that they are less than thoroughly convinced about the strength of their own beliefs, or those of others like them; folks whose actions raise the question, just how faithful are persons of faith after all?

Recently, I got to thinking about this question because of the announcement that President Bush had gone on record as supporting the teaching of "intelligent design" in American schools. For those unfamiliar with the concept, it is but the latest pseudo-scientific prattle pushed by those who wish to insert religion into the nation's educational system under the guise of something else.

<edit>

Faith is supposed to come from the heart, because by definition it is not about empirical evidence as generally required by the mature brain. Faith is about something less tangible than science, but just as real for those who have it. Turning faith into something that can be proven, something that can be validated ostensibly by the strictures of the scientific method (and which needs to be in order to be taken seriously), suggests that those proclaiming their faith are not nearly as convinced as they would have us believe.

Of course none of this is particularly new. One of the reigning hallmarks of Western Christianity (at least in its dominant white version, which is very different than that practiced in most of the black church, or by liberation theologians in Latin America, or even by white rebels like Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo) has been the stunning faithlessness of its approach to God, as evidenced by the capitalistic way in which it has been commoditized, and the way in which it has sought out things like ID to validate its key concepts.

more...

[Orrex]

1. A fine editorial, but I have one complaint...

Here's the snippet:

For those unfamiliar with the concept, (Intelligent Design Creationism) is but the latest pseudo-scientific prattle pushed by those who wish to insert religion into the nation's educational system under the guise of something else.

Technically this is true--ID Creationism is the latest prattle, but that description makes it seem as if it's new or revolutionary. In fact, as we all know here, it's been around in its current incarnation for decades, and in its true form ( basic Creationism) it's been around for centuries. It's also been thoroughly debunked for nearly as long, and it's always been intellectually bankrupt. The fact that it's the latest theory of Creationism just demonstrates what a wasteland Creationism really is.

Acolytes of this bogus religion are adept at grabbing any rhetorical slip and perverting it to their agenda. To describe a centuries-old myth as "the latest" anything is to give it an air of modernity and sophistication to which it has no real claim.

ID Creationism's proponents are dangerous, aggressive, and well-connected zealots. It is a mistake to allow them even an inch of legislative wiggle room when they are trying to force their anti-scientific agenda into our public schools.

If their myths really are science, let them submit their experiments and studies for peer review, so that their theories can be incorporated into the scientific literature.

If their myths can't withstand such basic scrutiny, then they certainly have no place in science textbooks.