Saturday, July 09, 2005

Quick Thought on Creationism

Do you think if we referred to evolution as "God's Stock Market" that fundamentalists would be more willing to accept it? The stock market analogy is quite accurate and instructive. And as I said earlier, I have no problem with people believing that God created the world, with evolution as His method of species design. Because we don't know if that's untrue. Just as long as they're taught the stuff that we do know, and that they're not specifically taught the god stuff in school.

And if that's what it takes to help the medicine go down, so be it. They can believe anything they want, except for what we know isn't true. And that's the way it should be.

3 comments:

PublicOrgTheory said...

Dunno, Dr. B. Seems to me there's no stomach among fundamentalists for some of evolutions well-founded arguments. You could get a concession that God is capable of such a thing, but making Eve out of Adam's rib seems to be an article of faith--and what passes for reason--among the fundamentalist crowd.

I think, by the way, that Intelligent Design is what fundamentalists would like to say is "God's Stock Market".

Doctor Biobrain said...

Well I'm still a little confused as to exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to be, and I'm not sure if this is due to my lazyness or their intentional deception; because they seem to be wanting things both ways. Sometimes they seem to say that evolution couldn't work on its own, and that a creator must have interferred with the process along the way. And other times, they only mean that a creator started it and that evolution really did the rest. And I have no real problem with this second theory, as it's outside of the realm of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how the universe or life began, so the God people can keep that, if they want. They can also credit the Big Bang to Him too, for all I care. Hell, they can believe that Santa Claus or aliens were responsible, just as long as it's not taught in school.

So the real arguments against evolution can't be from this second argument, because it's still completely evolution. Their real case is with the first one, in that they believe that evolution alone cannot explain what happened after life began. And if they say that evolution alone can't explain these changes, then the second idea must be wrong too. But I think they're trying to have it both ways, because far more people will believe in the second theory than those who believe in the first. But I think the first one is the actual theory of ID, and that is not my God's Stock Market idea. It's like God's Enron Market, with God constantly manipulating the market. And to be honest, I get the impression that most evolutionists, including yourself, get these two ideas confused. But these two theories of ID are mutually exclusive, with one disproving the other.

PublicOrgTheory said...

Well I'm still a little confused as to exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to be, and I'm not sure if this is due to my lazyness or their intentional deception; because they seem to be wanting things both ways.

I don't know you well enough to know whether you're lazy, and I don't know them well enough to know whether they're smart enough to intentionally deceive, but I do know that they want to have it both ways.

What you seem to be setting out as your distinction is that one view has God causing the evolution process to begin, where the other has God governing the process, and capriciously at that. I think you're fine with the first so long as the causing part isn't taught in school, and I think you're baffled at the second. Correct me if I missed something.

I don't care whether the first premise is true. The science of evolution is convincing to me (so obvious, in fact, that I never took the time to even wonder whether I am an "evolutionist"). The second premise is a joke, though, and it is what Intelligent Design claims to describe. IDers take the first premise as a given and the second one as the only possible explanation for how life got the way it is. On this point I am not the least bit confused.

I don't buy the stock market analogy at all, by the way. The market's governed in ways that prevent its natural development, and in ways that clearly imply design (though not necessarily intelligence). I can't buy any metaphor that assumes a sentient guiding hand.