Wow. Okay, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it at all, but since I exercised poor judgment, let me try to respond to the responses...
We'd have to define "intelligent". Any one who knows a lick of science can figure out that the creation account in Genesis isn't the way things went down. I guess a person could be scientifically illiterate but be knowledgeable in other subjects and still be considered "intelligent".
Yeah, that's basically what I meant. As much as it baffles us here, there are some people who just take no real interest in science. They are definitely knowledgeable about other areas of interest, just maybe not so much science. This can get frustrating when these people happen to be religious and just simply like to argue.
If intelligent people honestly believe that the Earth stays in its orbit because invisible pixies push it around, do we do them any favours by trying to be respectful of that belief, rather than just saying "No, that's wrong. It's so wrong that it's complete crap.", and then explaining about gravity?
I honestly believe that the belief that every biologist of the last 150 years is either incompetent or dishonest is offensive, and does not deserve any respect (though the people that hold that belief may well be very worthy of respect). This is not to say that I go out of my way to insult said belief, but I see no reason to pussyfoot around it to make sure I don't cause offence.
With all due respect Winter, I think you overstate or complicate or misrepresent the opposing view. Well, okay, let me qualify that: I don't know of any Creationist (let's call it what it is) that subscribes to any variation of that. Just because
Peter Griffin says 'Christians don't believe in gravity' doesn't make it true.
You are correct in saying that the belief that every biologist of the past 150 years is dishonest is offensive. There have been people on both sides of the issue who touted dishonest findings to try to prove their side, which hasn't helped the whole situation at all. And they are by far the exception rather than the rule. But your last statement is where we differ: I often go out of my way to try to avoid causing offense. I think that's totally a personality thing, though, not anything related to our belief systems.
No, Russell's statement was not "believing in God is garbage"... nor did he necessarily state (this time) that believing that God created the world is garbage. He specified: ID is garbage. And since he had just finished pointing out that evolution is mute on the subject of god, I think that makes an important distinction. That being that evolution is *one* part of an explanation of how life came to be on this planet; while ID is a political movement based on false logic, intended to foist purely religious teachings off as "science".
When ID was first explained to me, I thought, "Oh, good... Christians are finally realizing that the Theory of Evolution is no threat to their belief system." I was wrong. ID is to science what Elections are to Russia; a mockery based on a commonly believed fiction.
I'll expand on that briefly: In Russia, they hold an election, but everyone knows who they're supposed to vote for in advance. Then, when they are criticized for being an authoritarian dictatorship, they say, "Hey, we have democracy... it's just our own kind of democracy." ID does the same thing; by changing the definition of "science", ID hopes to re-brand the Creation Myth as "science" - their own kind of science.
I'm sure you understand the concept of mathematical subsets, so I won't try to draw a picture; but the idea here is that "birdless", "some intelligent people who still believe in ID", "the Pope", "ID", and "Jesus" are all subsets of "Christianity". If Russell had said " Christianity is garbage", that would encompass the other sets, and you'd have every right to be offended. So would Jesus and the Pope. But since he said "ID is garbage", that criticism lacks the transmutative property necessary to tarnish the other subsets. (Okay, so those "intelligent people" might be mad... without specifics, they are just Invisible Pink Unicorns, AFAIC.)
QED, just as you (as a believer) would not follow anyone who claims to be a believer simply because they *claim* to share your faith, you don't need to take offense when someone derides a crackpot idea that some have mistaken for theology. It's not the same subset.
Tad, you always give a lot to respond to!
Okay, first, I never said that Russell said that "Believing in God is garbage." But you make appropriate delineation to specify he said "ID is garbage." And your statement that ID is a political movement is scarily true. I wish that weren't the case. I hadn't thought of it in those terms until you framed it that way. I think, though, that I'm beginning to see an underlying issue here that I haven't heard stated (correct me if I'm wrong on any point here): the "ID side" (I don't like that blanket term, but let's just use it for simplification) want to see more of a partnership between religion and science, whereas the other side want it to remain mutually exclusive. I'm
very conflicted on this, because I can
definitely see the dangers of the former, but it's also frustrating that theoretical science seems to start from the assumption that God doesn't exist. I can't say that that should be "fixed," but it is frustrating to this believer. I'm trying to think of an analogy to help you see my frame of mind, but the best I can come up with is this: it's like spaghetti without noodles. It may taste pretty good, but something is missing. (And honestly, the Invisible Spaghetti Monster didn't pop into my head until now
) I also didn't mean to imply that I was offended. I can see where you may have gotten that idea, but it wasn't so much that I was offended as just try to diffuse a situation that hadn't occurred yet. But, you're probably right, and I admitted as much in my initial post, that I'm probably just being oversensitive. It can be a blessing and a curse.
The bottom line on ID is that the creators don't even believe their own theory. Proper sciencentific process is to take your findings and publish them in a peer review journal. Other scientists then get to take out the sticks and beat your results until they say it stands up or they prove it's junk. The Discovery Institute refuses to release any of their evidence. They publish books about ID and say they have fool proof evidence. But they refuse to show it. They want to teach it in the schools, but we can't inspect it. Name me one thing you would allow to be taught in schools if all of the supporting evidence was kept secret.
See, you know more about the ID political movement than I do. Way more. It's not something I personally find especially important relative to other things that
need to be fixed. All that you stated about the Discovery Institute is news to me. I'm honestly not even that familiar with that institution. But any "scientific" institution that keeps their findings secret is
begging for ridicule. I can better understand why you chose the terms you chose now.
So. All that said, I really didn't mean to try to stir anything up. In fact, I was trying to steer things
away from potential escalation. I apologize if it came across as offensive.
<edit: added the escalation bit and reworded the last sentence in case it may have come across as sarcastic>
