April 28th, 2009
Scientific conclusions are not believed in in the same way gods are believed in. 
We do not consider scientific conclusions to be absolute truth, we do not worship scientists or credit them with fantastic superpowers. Unfortunately there are no holidays in science. In a totally pragmatic society we’d have to find some other criteria for giving ourselves days-off from work and reasons to get paid for work we aren’t doing. That’s if four and maybe even three day work weeks don’t become more popular first. I don’t doubt economic feasibility studies are already underway.
We “believe” in many of the conclusions science has come to because they make sense in our view of reality and they are conclusions drawn from evidence or consistent with the knowledge we’ve already gained historically. The “belief” of the theist and the “belief” of the non-believer are based on very different degrees of skepticism and the requirements for validity. We do not believe in evolution to the degree a theist believes in their creation story. We do not accept the majority of creation stories because they do not satisfy our skepticism, they do not answer questions to our satisfaction and they offer no evidence of having actually happened.
ID/Creationism, Science, evolution |
11 Comments »
August 25th, 2008
Courtesy of The Guardian:
The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools – after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum’s time will have to be secular. “Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism,” said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.
Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur’an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools. The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like. Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families – and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights. It does not even go as far as Nyamko Sabuni, the minister for integration – herself born in Burundi – would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective.
The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources. This would allow the inspectors – whose budget is being doubled – to concentrate their efforts on those schools most likely to be paid to break the rules.
It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact. Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.
Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity.
Education, ID/Creationism, Society |
175 Comments »
July 3rd, 2008
{a reply in a Volconvo forum thread on intelligent design}
If “design”, whatever you mean by that, is an absolute state (everything that exists is designed by a designer) then the designer is not exempt. The designer would be a product of a design, which implies another, previous designer, and one before him and so on. Any implied “purpose” to this universe requires the one whose purpose is being expressed. The only way to avoid the infinite regression is to maintain that there is no purpose, no design, no rhyme, no reason, no philosophy to the universe. Stuff happens.

We humans can think abstract thoughts. We don’t know if that’s unique to humans, but we can be sure we can do it. Purpose, design and all the rest are abstractions. They aren’t physical realities. You can’t buy me a package of purpose at the store. Being able to think abstractly has its benefits and its liabilities. One liability is our tendency to confuse the abstract with the tangible.
I see no reason to take ID or any variation of it seriously. It’s an idea that’s been poorly defended. It fails to validate. It isn’t credible.

ID/Creationism |
1 Comment »
Feedback