But not cards, for a change. I was listening to a programme (essentially a religious one) on Radio 4 recently, about ‘Intelligent’ Design (ID).
It was the second time that day that I had heard SETI pulled in to support ID. The thesis seems to be that, since SETI searches for meaningful information hidden within random noise, it is “the same as” the search for a designer amidst the seeming randomness of the universe. The proponents of ID think that the complexity of the real world means that there must be an intelligence behind it. But the main thing these people need to learn is that complexity does not equal design.
Or not necessarily, at any rate. They are doubly confusing themselves — and others, who may be unsure about the realities of science and the tricks of creationists. They look at the search for order among the chaos, and liken it to — really, identify it with — the belief that order lies behind the chaos.
Let’s put it another way. SETI searches through random noise and attempts to find ordered data, all the while aware that the ordered data may not be there; indeed, to date it has not been. It further proposes that, if ordered data is found, then that may imply that there is an intelligence behind it.
The ID proponents observe the order in the universe and assume that there must be an intelligence behind it; they also see the randomness in the universe, and jump to the conclusion that SETI is doing the same thing as they are.
It is arrant nonsense, of course, but then ID is, from start to finish. Oh, don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing in the laws of physics, chemistry or biology that precludes the existence of a designer, a creator, a supreme being: a deity, in short. As, indeed, there is no need for science to be incompatible with belief in, or the existence of, a deity. Back when I was a Catholic, I remember one of my primary-school teachers explaining that, while the Bible says that God created the world in six days, a day to God might be a million years to us. Don’t take it literally, in other words.
And therein lies the problem: creationists and believers in ID (who are just very thinly-disguised creationists) take the Bible (though which version, I have to ask?) literally.
Which is a bit like taking any of humanity’s great history of myths literally. Why stop with the Christian Bible, and their strange god, “God”1? Let’s take the Norse gods literally, for example. So the next time you’re caught in a thunderstorm, remember, it’s not just the random discharge of static electricity in the atmosphere: Thor is after you.
Or the Greeks: they had some great ones. When you light the gas to cook tea tonight, say a prayer of thanks to Prometheus, OK?
Oh look, we seem to be back at my latest Book Notes post, American Gods. Which makes sense, since it is American fundamentalist Christers who want to foist their god on the rest of their country — and by extension, on the rest of the world. By the not-so-subtle device of using the law to control what can and can’t be taught in schools. What is wrong with these people? Have they never heard of the separation of church and state?
Fortunately the US courts seem to be holding the line of sanity so far; but oh my non-existent, speculative all-powerful creator-figure: I hope we don’t get a branch of the Christian Taliban trying to introduce this shite into our schools over here. I have children to bring up, so I have a direct interest in these things.
Let’s not teach our kids to be stupid.
1. As the NME used to say.
10 Comments
Have they never heard of the separation of church and state?
Of course they have. They think it’s one of the worst things to happen in the last four hundred years.
. . . and yet they still think the Constitution is perfect and should also be interpreted literally and conservatively. Yes, I can spell “cognitive dissonance”, as you ask.
Good news is that the most recent coverage of ID over here has been “it’s going to hell in a handbasket”.
There was about a year where ID was all over the news, probably peaked with the Dover, PA, school board requiring teaching of ID, swiftly followed by the board being kicked out.
Me, I’m more worried about the composition of the new Supreme Court, and the upcoming battles on overturning Roe v Wade, e.g. North Dakota passing an abortion ban which clearly violates Roe v Wade, just to see if the new court will let them get away with it.
No matter how much the Republicans get kicked around this year and in 2008 (and after Katrina they’re not healthy) this court is going to be hanging around for a while.
Ah, but you see, that all depends on the amendment.
GodThe Founders meant the second amendment to be taken very, very literally. Gotta keep that well-regulated militia, after all. Otherwise the government might get too powerful… errr…But the first, though: that’s much more… allegorical, y’know? And the fourth:
Godthey didn’t really mean that the people should be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.*Sigh* Such an admirable document. Sad that it’s currently in the hands of such arses.
I think there is a consistent world view here. The US constitution bans the establishment of religion, which is interpreted by the origonalists to mean “no official state religion”, i.e. nothing like the CoE, no surprise there. The interpretation meaning “separation of church and state” and in particular “no federal support for any religious activity” is 20th century, and is what’s being fought against, e.g. GWB’s “faith-based initiatives”.
Not that I believe any of this, but I think it’s at least internally coherent.
Where arses == new-look supreme court, indeedy doody. During the Nixon/Reagan/BushI/BushII years, the retro-1980s supreme court was a bastion of sensibleness compared to the executive.
That’s a good point. It’s clear that “separation of church and state” is an extension of the precise meaning of the first amendment; but it’s a pretty well established one, it seems to me.
And I suspect that the fundies would love to have a mandatory state religion if they could. Course, they might tear themselves apart fighting over which particular sect it would be.
Well, yes. I was thinking of the executive branch, but it’s true that the Constitution is in the care of the judiciary.
I wish we had one. A constitution, that is.
I’m sure the EU would be only too happy to provide one. Oops, butterfingers, the French and Dutch dropped it!
Yes, unfortunately it was established by that boo-hiss late 20th century supreme court we’re all meant to hate.
I don’t know if there’d be much support for an established church, although I suspect mandatory prayers in school, bible class, etc. would go down fine. The megachurches are just to proud of their own independence to want to hand over to something that would end up looking like the CoE, i.e. an inclusive not-wanting-to-offend-anyone affair.