ID - What's the real agenda?

[H3LL]

I am suspicious that the large amount of activity from the ID movement has more things on its agenda.

Many (not all) counter-claims against ID concentrate on evolution but fail to address the other sciences and theories that are under attack such as archaeology and geology.

I know it is slippery-slope thinking but a valid exercise nonetheless:

1) What sciences do you consider to be under direct active attack by ID and other fundy movements?

2) When they have successfully replaced evolution teaching with ID, what is next in your opinion?

[Psi Baba]

IDers seek to discredit anything that contradicts or does not agree with what is stated in the Bible. Naturally, this encompasses many different sciences. Just as the Church tried to squelch Copernicus and Galileo, modern IDers, particularly Young-Earth Creationists, feel threatened by any of the sciences which are founded on the notion of an earth and a universe that is billions of years old and of processes that take millions of years to happen. Since they believe that the Bible is the literal truth, any science that contradicts the Bible, in their view, must be completely wrong. What's more, they seem to refer to everything as evolution, regardless of what it really is. The whole creation vs. evolution thing doesn't even make any sense, because evolution is not about how life began on earth or how the universe came into being. Those are entirely different sciences althogether.

But since evolution contradicts the beliefs of fundamentalists it therefore threatens their hold on adherents. The primary objective of religion is control. When you allow people to think for themselves and to become educated about the world, you cannot control them as easily. When you control knowledge, you control the masses. IDers wish to have absolute control over what is taught to children. They would prefer that no science at all is taught, only doctrine. They dress up creationism as science only to wedge it into school curricula. There is no science in it and they know it. So, as you've suggested, it's more than evolution they reject. When you look at their arguments, it becomes clear that they also reject Cosmology, Paleontology, Astronomy, and in part Archeology, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Plate Tectonics, etc. Look at the furor over the Grand Canyon book (A Different View). Most proponents of that book and the ideas it puts forth continually refer to the scientific viewpoint about the Grand Canyon as "evolution." We're talking rock formations not living things, but they keep calling it evolution. So they are really attacking Geology, but calling anyone who agrees with geological science an evolutionist. I suppose in their view, electricity is wrong, too, since the Bible never mentions it. So eventually, every scientific discipline is potential fodder for these people, since by and large science tends not to support fairy tales.

[pupdog]

The real agenda is to do away with evil materialistic science, replacing it with what they refer to as "theistic science." And, of course, to have a theocracy. For details, see Talk Reason article by Barbara Forrest. It's really not just about what's talked about in science class!

[BillC]

I regard ID as simply a fallback position for Creationists. There is sufficient physical evidence to convince anyone other than a child that:

a) the world is much older than a creation date of 4004 BC;
b) it was not created in six days;
c) humanity did not arise from nothing but a single pair of humans and their incestuous offspring.

These views have now become untenable by any but the most blinkered of fundies. Since this position is lost, a retreat has been made to the safer ground of assuming the existence of a gentle guiding hand in the background. Now the evidence is more subtle and we need to talk about mechanisms for forming protein chains, "irreducible complexity", 'spontaneous' generation of structures such as eyes and so on. The general public are less confident about scientific evidence contrary to these ideas and it is easier for IDers to maintain this position.

I don't believe there is a slippery slope here, but rather that ID is favoured by those that cannot fully abandon Creationism.

[pupdog]

Indeed, when the term "Intelligent Design" was presented in "Of Pandas and People", it was not really intended as referring to a real scientific effort, but rather as a means to sidestep the Supreme Court's proscription on teaching a particular religious view (the Creator God of Genesis) in public schools. It was still Creationism, but without explicitly mentioning "God."

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Psi Baba
IDers seek to discredit anything that contradicts or does not agree with what is stated in the Bible.

The bible contradicts the bible. How in the name of Ed can they credit the bible, then?

[Zep]

The "control" they want is over the money. That is, there is a core group of these fundamentalists for whom control is not just about hearts and minds, it's about significantly boosting their own personal income and fiduciary wealth.

A neat parallel example is publicly extant - Scientology. We can all debate the idiocies of Hubbard's fantasy sci-fi based theology, but the REAL reason Scientology was created was for Ron to accumulate vast amounts of personal wealth from suckers. One only has to ask why their drone adherents roam the streets trying to capture more converts. Answer: The converts bring more money in by paying heaps for their scam "treatments". And celebrities have a double bonus - publicity, plus a bigger rake-off. It's worth noting that on Hubbard's death, the in-fighting by the top echelon of the Scientologists for control of the organisation was all about the money, the many millions of dollars the "company" owns. And it was fierce and rugged - like Mafia dons fighting for territory.

Meanwhile, back at the fundies, the next source of evidence is dear old Kent Hovind. Why does he want creationism taught in public schools? Actually, he doesn't. He actually wants the whole public school system abolished. That is, all education should be privatised, according to Kent. Although his stated reason is to inculcate creationism into the curriculum because he is altruistic, the real reason is clearly to get himself in on a huge (and probably tax-free) cash-cow that such an education scheme would probably provide. And already Kent has fallen foul of the taxman for understating his own "meagre fortune" (accrued from his current dodgy projects) by some hundreds of thousands of dollars... Altrusitic? Bullsh1t.

Money, folks; it's about the money with these people.

[Eos of the Eons]

Funny thing. You can't question ID in the classroom...according to IDers you can only question evolution and take on ID as the alternative. Don't question ID though...



http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html

Quote:

some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

Well, how dare they ask questions about ID! They are supposed to question evolution afterall, that is the point. ID is to be taken on faith, it is religion afterall.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL

1) What sciences do you consider to be under direct active attack by ID and other fundy movements?

2) When they have successfully replaced evolution teaching with ID, what is next in your opinion?

All sciences are under attack. Science is observation. Religion is not observation. All things are directed by gods, not chemical reactions and mythical theories like gravity

What happens next?

You stop using the scientific process elsewhere. You take on faith that god will heal you and stop looking for advances in medicine. You take on faith that your business will succeed and stop looking for opportunities and areas of improvement.

We go back to the middle ages and start hanging everyone that dares to defy faith in some way. Scrap technologies...they need human interventions, and that is so unnatural and evil!

Name one thing you think is not affected by the scientific process. Name one thing you feel cannot be affected if we scrap science classes entirely and just teach ID for everything.

Even if we only scrap evolution, then our thought processes will dwindle for everything. I look to David Schlosser for his examples from pharmaceuticals to software to business principles that are part of the evolutionary process.

Quote:

Computer scientists are deciphering the genetic diversity of the rainforests and the oceans so biologists and chemists can replicate the therapeutic effects of plants and animals that have evolved over millions of years in unique environments...
The most advanced creators of software use development practices that mimic Darwinian principles – for example, several different developers can write several different codesets that accomplish the same task, and then pit those codesets against each other in a competition to see which one codeset secures the most resources for itself and proves itself the superior codeset by its survival...
Today’s principles of business management mimic evolutionary processes – constant observation and experimentation that results in incremental improvements in processes as varied as assembling computers and cars or accelerating workflow of service providers like tax preparers...

It's beyond comprehension what IDers think they are accomplishing. They have their so-called agenda, and that is the only thing they care about in their tunnel vision.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Funny thing. You can't question ID in the classroom...according to IDers you can only question evolution and take on ID as the alternative. Don't question ID though...



http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html

Well, how dare they ask questions about ID! They are supposed to question evolution afterall, that is the point. ID is to be taken on faith, it is religion afterall.

That's scary. Really scary!!

[Eos of the Eons]

Yes, welcome to hell. It's heaven for the fundies. Don't we all want the fundies to happy? Oh, let's just scrap science!

I still don't know why they have been allowed to get this far. It's being taught in several schools now, including Pennsylvania for gosh sakeds.

They get on the school boards and are managing to scrap the separation of church and state.

This is ridiculous.

[CFLarsen]

Next step will be to forbid women abortions. Then, forget about contraception. Women become breeding machines - silent ones, of course.

Children go to Sunday school, and nothing else. Closing down of all schools, high schools, colleges and universities, all we need is the Bible.

Abolition of courts, of course: Only the Elders will decide, based on the Bible.

Medicine will go, that is the work of the Devil. Rest assured that most of your children will die within the first 12 months after being born. But that's OK, just get some more.

Yep, the US is well on its way to become a beaming light of ignorance.

[pupdog]

Quote:

I still don't know why they have been allowed to get this far.

They get this far because they don't take their psedudoscientific arguments to scientific forums, but rather they approach the scientifically illiterate and say they are only calling for the schools to be "fair" or "open-minded." They can't convince scientists, so they hope to convince children. Being fair and open-minded is the American way, right?

Speaking of fair and open-minded, has anyone heard of progress at Florida State University to open a college of Chiropractic Medicine?

[bPer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
All sciences are under attack. Science is observation. Religion is not observation. All things are directed by gods, not chemical reactions and mythical theories like gravity

What happens next?

You stop using the scientific process elsewhere. You take on faith that god will heal you and stop looking for advances in medicine. You take on faith that your business will succeed and stop looking for opportunities and areas of improvement.

We go back to the middle ages and start hanging everyone that dares to defy faith in some way. Scrap technologies...they need human interventions, and that is so unnatural and evil!

Name one thing you think is not affected by the scientific process. Name one thing you feel cannot be affected if we scrap science classes entirely and just teach ID for everything.

Even if we only scrap evolution, then our thought processes will dwindle for everything. I look to David Schlosser for his examples from pharmaceuticals to software to business principles that are part of the evolutionary process.

It's beyond comprehension what IDers think they are accomplishing. They have their so-called agenda, and that is the only thing they care about in their tunnel vision.

I really have no idea what their real agenda is, but I have my suspicions. I suspect that they want to have their cake and eat it too. As long as the masses toe the line, they'll be happy to leave reality to the hard-line skeptics that they won't be able to sway anyways. These reality-based people will be trusted to keep their precious standard of living from running down, and putting them back in the Dark Ages.

I have come to this conclusion after discovering, much to my shock and dismay, that the Province of Ontario has as its school curriculum: Course Descriptions and Prerequisites, Grades 9 to 12 . If you search that document, there is only one reference to biological evolution, and that is for Grade 12, University Preparation! Now, this is a curriculum document, not a textbook, so evolution may be being discussed outside the curriculum, but it seems to me that Ontario is only mandating the teaching of evolution to those students who are going on to university. Even students heading on to college aren't being taught evolution. And of course, the general and trades programmes get no exposure at all either. My suspicion (without proof) is that the curriculum was quietly "dumbed down" to try to avoid ID attacks. There used to be a group that argued this, but their website is now gone.

So, what we have here in Ontario (if my suspicions are true) is a large mass of students leaving the education system without any exposure to evolution at all! Perfect targets for the fundies and IDers.

If creationism manages to get an effective foothold in this country too, we can expect ID to be taught in that one Grade 12 class too. Then it will fall on university professors to do some remedial deprogramming of first-year biology students, so they can operate in the real world of science. I suspect that the IDers don't care about this small group, considering them 'hopeless sinners bound for Hell' anyways, and still needing people with real-world skills and understanding to maintain our quality of life. Sort of like slaves, in a way. The rest of the population will be properly indoctrinated and controlled, and can, in turn, keep the reality-based folks in their place. Sort of like the "in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant" mentality.

Whew! Glad to get that off my chest!

βPer

[pupdog]

For more on their agenda, read their Manifesto, "The Wedge Document" which may still be hanging around the Discovery Institute Web pages, or find it (and discussions) over at talk origins .

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by pupdog
They get this far because they don't take their psedudoscientific arguments to scientific forums, but rather they approach the scientifically illiterate and say they are only calling for the schools to be "fair" or "open-minded." They can't convince scientists, so they hope to convince children. Being fair and open-minded is the American way, right?

Speaking of fair and open-minded, has anyone heard of progress at Florida State University to open a college of Chiropractic Medicine?

Depressingly true. So what to do about? So many of them, so few of us.

As far as I know, the situation is still being debated, any current updates would be appreciated.

bPer, yes, judging from my own education up to Biology 30, there is really no mention of evolution.

In grade 8 there was a section on the age of the planet...you know http://paleontology.esmartstudent.com/table.html

and my creationut science teacher (his son is now a chiro) refused to go over it, told us to read the page on the earth's periods on our own time, and poo pooed evolution to the class for the whole period. That was my whole education in public school on evolution. Skipped over the layers of the planet a bit.

I don't remember seeing the word Evolution in any textbooks, just earth's age, etc. We focused more on the human cell structure and inner workings of the human body. Touched a little on genetics.

I didn't learn anything about evolution itself until I went to college.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL
I am suspicious that the large amount of activity from the ID movement has more things on its agenda.

I see ID as an interesting idea that could have some non-political potential, but as of now, is full of unconvincing, to me, arguments.

For example, irreducible complexity, among others. A mousetrap, when any part is taken away does not function as a mousetrap. Besides the fact that people have made functional mousetraps out of fewer parts, as I see it, I believe it assumes that in the intermediate steps the materials went through to get to a mousetrap as we know it (MT), say steps M1, M2, M3, ..., MT, that M1's function, for example, was as a mousetrap, and M2's function was as a mousetrap, etc. This 'was always used as a mousetrap' view is most likely false, and that is an understatement.

M1's function could have been a paperweight. M2's function could have been a paperweight with a little bar on top that made it more aesthetic and more desirable for the paperweight buyers.. M3's function could have been as a paperweight/business card holder. M4's function could have been to hold other things, perhaps because the holding aspect of it now dominated the paperweight aspect, and etc.

The same type of argument applies to their example of the flagellum. Perhaps parts used in the flagellum didn't have locomotion as their original function.

I have a small rock tumbler. I can "design" the appearance of a rock; can specify its smoothness using various size grit and tumbling stones and the length of time. If I present two rocks, one that is polished by natural means (water and sand and time in the ocean), and one that is polished by using my intelligence to specify its looks, does an ID proponent have a method by which they can determine which one was polished by an intelligence?

If they cannot distinguish between, then there is no way to differentiate between a designer designing things and natural physical processes 'designing' things.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by jzs
Besides the fact that people have made functional mousetraps out of fewer parts, as I see it, I believe it assumes that in the intermediate steps the materials went through to get to a mousetrap as we know it (MT), say steps M1, M2, M3, ..., MT, that M1's function, for example, was as a mousetrap, and M2's function was as a mousetrap, etc. This 'was always used as a mousetrap' view is most likely false, and that is an understatement.

Excuse me, but who claims this? Yes, I am asking for specifics.

[bPer]

Eos, it sounds like you've seen the future of our education system first-hand - a begrudging reference to reality, followed by a good stern sermon.

I was going to say that at least there is evidence (you) that not all students are sucked in, but I see that you have a post-secondary education. If you don't mind me asking, what were your views during high school about evolution? Did your college education set you straight, or had you seen through this fundie teacher's biases?

As for my own, earlier experience, I can't say really. I hated biology (all cataloguing and no theory), and avoided it as soon as I had the option. I learned about evolution on my own time. I wish I had biology textbooks from that period, to see if, as I suspect, evolution was taught then, and has since been de-emphasized.

So, what to do about this? Certainly, the recent shift in political power in the States has me extremely worried. I don't know how long we can keep their fundie garbage from infecting our society too. And we don't even have an explicit constitutional separation of church and state here. I guess we do what you've already started doing - writing to editors, starting websites, and supporting groups and political parties that will work to defend us against these people. Doesn't seem hardly enough, I fear.

βPer

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by jzs
I see ID as an interesting idea that could have some non-political potential, but as of now, is full of unconvincing, to me, arguments.


If they cannot distinguish between, then there is no way to differentiate between a designer designing things and natural physical processes 'designing' things.

Geez, I don't even see that as the point. ID is religion. No place in the classroom unless it is a christian school. They want to deny that there is any natural processes at all, so why differentiate?

Non-political potential? Why? It's creationism. Pure and simple. What's the point.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Non-political potential? Why? It's creationism. Pure and simple. What's the point.

The point is to portray ID as some sort of non-objectionable issue. Gee, it's just opinion, right? So, we should give it equal time, right?

Don't even think for a second that those who do not reject ID as religious tyranny don't have an agenda for imposing woo-claims on the rest of us.

Let go of your critical sense in one area, and you don't need it for the rest. It's the "bologna" strategy: One slice at a time, until the whole sausage is gone.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer
Eos, it sounds like you've seen the future of our education system first-hand - a begrudging reference to reality, followed by a good stern sermon.

I was going to say that at least there is evidence (you) that not all students are sucked in, but I see that you have a post-secondary education. If you don't mind me asking, what were your views during high school about evolution? Did your college education set you straight, or had you seen through this fundie teacher's biases?

As for my own, earlier experience, I can't say really. I hated biology (all cataloguing and no theory), and avoided it as soon as I had the option. I learned about evolution on my own time. I wish I had biology textbooks from that period, to see if, as I suspect, evolution was taught then, and has since been de-emphasized.

So, what to do about this? Certainly, the recent shift in political power in the States has me extremely worried. I don't know how long we can keep their fundie garbage from infecting our society too. And we don't even have an explicit constitutional separation of church and state here. I guess we do what you've already started doing - writing to editors, starting websites, and supporting groups and political parties that will work to defend us against these people. Doesn't seem hardly enough, I fear.

βPer

For sure, I'm worried out of my head.

My views on evolution during high school was confusion. I was left wondering what it was and how it worked. My great 8 teacher simply applauded my question "then where did the monkeys come from?".

He only made us think evolutionary theory was that we did simply come from monkeys, like chimps.

I did do some of my own reading, and did come to understand evolution was branches rather than direct lines from the great apes. I was still clueless until college. Yes, that education finally set me straight. I was angry that I was denied all that information during high school. I was angry knowing most people would not have clue about it but the lies they would hear from creationists. The ID curriculum is case in point about what you will hear from them.

Even my love of biology didn't spare me from ignorance about evolution throughout my education until college.

It's darn sad, and I do take every opportunity to educate those around me who are interested. I stocked up on books from TAM3 to help in this as well.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The point is to portray ID as some sort of non-objectionable issue. Gee, it's just opinion, right? So, we should give it equal time, right?

Don't even think for a second that those who do not reject ID as religious tyranny don't have an agenda for imposing woo-claims on the rest of us.

Let go of your critical sense in one area, and you don't need it for the rest. It's the "bologna" strategy: One slice at a time, until the whole sausage is gone.

Then it's up to as many people as possible to point out that ID is creationism, plain and simple. Sure, it's opinion, from the bible. I don't understand how people don't see this, but I guess I do considering my own education.

Helloooooo out there! and Yes, keep this crap out of my country!

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Then it's up to as many people as possible to point out that ID is creationism, plain and simple. Sure, it's opinion, from the bible. I don't understand how people don't see this, but I guess I do considering my own education.

Helloooooo out there! and Yes, keep this crap out of my country!

Good luck. I doubt, however, that you'll be successful. If I were you, I'd move to another country. Real soon, if you want to keep your children alive, and keeping yourself as someone who is entitled to speak up for yourself.

[bPer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
He only made us think evolutionary theory was that we did simply come from monkeys, like chimps.

You truly have seen the future - teaching lies in the guise of science.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I was still clueless until college. Yes, that education finally set me straight. I was angry that I was denied all that information during high school. I was angry knowing most people would not have clue about it but the lies they would hear from creationists.

And most of your classmates, without the benefit of your college education, will go through life blissfully ignorant, wondering why these skeptics are picking on these 'wonderful god-fearing folks'.

Makes you want to cry, sometimes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
keep this crap out of my country!

Right on!

βPer

[bPer]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Good luck. I doubt, however, that you'll be successful. If I were you, I'd move to another country. Real soon, if you want to keep your children alive, and keeping yourself as someone who is entitled to speak up for yourself.

Well, I don't think we're to this point yet in Canada, Claus. And I'm not sure that cutting and running will solve the problem. We are probably just the 'canary in the coalmine', and this filth will spread throughout the world if left unchecked. I'd prefer to make a stand here. If nothing else, you in the rest of the world can learn from our efforts.

βPer

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by bPer
Well, I don't think we're to this point yet in Canada, Claus. And I'm not sure that cutting and running will solve the problem. We are probably just the 'canary in the coalmine', and this filth will spread throughout the world if left unchecked. I'd prefer to make a stand here. If nothing else, you in the rest of the world can learn from our efforts.

βPer

I sincerely hope that you are right. I fear that you are not.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Excuse me, but who claims this? Yes, I am asking for specifics.

I believe all of the ID examples I've seen imply this.

For example, when Behe defines irreducible complexity as

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

I believe he is assuming that the function we observe today was the same function that was there in the past.

For example, with the flagella, a motor that requires the interaction of 40 or so parts, the absence of single part causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe thinks that this is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly. But I feel he is focusing on the wrong function! It would be incorrect, in my opinion, to judge the function of these parts in the past with its current function.

Yes, maybe now if we removed a part the motor wouldn't work. So? That's not saying it couldn't have evolved, as if its function was different in the past, it could have functioned just fine lacking parts that we observe today.

[pupdog]

I've been paying attention to the Creationism movement for quite a few years now, but I've never seen the volume of articles, letters to editors, books, and tv & radio talk dealing with the subject that I've seen in the past year (especially since I'm in the same county as Dover, Pennsylvania). The right-wing fundy extremist magazines and Web pages are full of it. Numerous letters to editors show a widespread, abysmal misunderstanding of science and lack of critical thinking. It's scary to know that these people vote, and some of them are right beside the president, egging him on.