My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.
Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:
1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.
Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:
1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.
Let's try it one more time, just for fun:
1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.
Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.
Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?
If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Commentary about the philosophical, theological, musical and cultural landscapes of our day. And, of course, the occasional book review.
11 comments:
One odd thing about the whole FSM bit is that it creates a whole new religion around a specific deity -- it even has its own holy book.
Intelligent design -- what it is intended to combat -- is intentionally non-partisan about specific deities and holy books. Now, I know most ID proponents are Christians, but not all are, and those that are keep their Christianity separate from the ID part fairly well.
Still, the FSM bit is a real, even if small, enemy because satire is such a potent force.
I think that ID proponents do an absolutely terrible job of keeping Christianity separate from ID. That is what sunk them in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The board members who voted for ID did so based on their religious beliefs and (as I recall) only one of them seemed to understand the distinction between intelligent design and creationism. The Discovery Institute may be trying to keep ID separate from Christianity, but everyone else I have seen advocating it argues that it points to the God of the Bible.
Coming from my viewpoint, I can see both sides of this argument. I am a Christian, and I believe in having a wholistic worldview because I believe truth is unified. That is, I don't go for the whole fact/value dichotomy.
That being said, when I see ID explained by those who understand it (i.e. NOT the Dover-type folks), I see an hypothesis that is congruent with my faith, but is also congruent with Islam and Judaism, among other religions. In fact, some of the very founders of the ID movement are not Evanglicals at all (Behe is Catholic, one of the other guys I believe is a Moonie).
At the same time, the Dover-type folks do not adequately distinguish between "biblical" six-day creationism and ID. So Vinny and Chris, I appreciate both of your comments.
As for me, like I said, I don't think that science has to be totally separate from faith, but both should be separate from a lack of understanding or thought. I appreciate that you both do provide thoughtful comments.
I've been listening to the Philosophy of Science from the Great Courses series on CD. It seems that many dichotomies are far less clear than they first appear when you dig into them a bit.
Behe was forced to admit in Kitzmiller that his definition of science would have included astrology, but it is far from easy for any individual to come up with a definition that includes all the things he wants to think of as science while excluding all the things he wants to think of as pseudo-science. Human knowledge and experience does not always wish to stay in the neat cubby holes that we pick for it.
Jon;
I don’t know what I can say…I agree with everything you said in the article and comments.
I’m curious:
Do you hold to a six literal 24 hour days of creation viewpoint? :)
Well, I don't really know where I stand on that issue. I don't think that it matters a great deal whether God made the world in 6 days or 6 billion years. I'm fine with however He did it, but I am conviced that
1)He did create the universe.
2)He created humans as separate, distinct and very special creatures, so that we might glorify Him.
3)The Fall was a real, moral event that has had lasting consequences on all of this world.
These are some of the key points to be taken from Genesis 1-3, which I believe are more important than how old everything is, anyway.
Hi Jon;
You and I are VERY similar…. I completely agree with your listed points….
I have studied this subject a lot looking at all of the various perspectives in depth and none of them are able to throw “knock out punch” in my humble opinion.
Personally I am at the point where it seems to me that God has left the age aspect intentionally as a “mystery”…I understand that some do not like that kind of “tension” but I am comfortable “living” in it.
Interesting discussion...good points made on all sides. But I just have to say I do enjoy saying the flying spaghetti monster.
I would make one comment though in science's defense. I don't think science strives to push God out of the picture. Even though many Christians love throwing around the "naturalism" word, scientists aren't all sinister atheists with an agenda. I think the idea of science is not to find a natural explanation for phenomenon, but to see if one exists. For most of human history, we simply attributed to angels, demons, and God whatever happened. However, as biology, physics, chemistry progressed it was discovered that perhaps there were natural explanations for certain things. These understandings usually led to advances in medicine and technology and are usually considered good for society in general. Those who wished to keep God in the physical universe usually believed that God made the universe and left it to its own (mechanistic deism). Science does not have a set goal of "anything but God" but to use the brains God gave us to perhaps find explanations. Instead of just saying "God did it" we might be able to say how!
Phil,
Thanks for the comments! I like your definition of science. And I hope I did not portray all scientists as atheists with an agenda. But you propose a good definition of what science should be all about. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of the more out-spoken scientists (and I must confess, these are the scientists about which I know the most) share your definition. I think this has a lot to do with power, politics and a lack of philosophical understanding. But given your definition, which again, for the record, I like, I would expect less violent opposition to an idea like ID.
Anyway, I look forward to future enlightened conversation with you, here or via email. (Hint, hint.) And I hope you and Melissa are planning a trip out here sometime!
I believe that my definition would hold for most scientists. However you must remember that most of us have been burned by religion (myself included) and so there is a definite desire to fight back. Unfortunately science is often caught in the middle. Would I say that there is an intelligent designer a priori? No. Too much of what I have seen and learned about our universe allows for natural explanations. Could there have been what Aquinas called a Prime Mover (if I am wrong on my citation I know you'll correct me) sure of course, but 1) it doesn't really change science 2)it is beyond the scope of science to find it out. However, we have often in our shortsightedness attributed to God things that we thought were beyond the scope of science only to discover that there were natural explanations.
Post a Comment