For some stupid reason, I allowed a friend to refer me to something “intelligent” that a prominent TV host said yesterday regarding how we have to allow people to look closely at “Intelligent Design” as, well, scientific theory.
Well, no we don’t. What is referred to as “Intelligent Design” is in no way scientific. Though this person claimed there were countless “scientists” who had embraced ID as a scientific theory, the fact of the matter is, almost none do. Not only that, but those who do generally have the good sense to separate it from their scientific endeavors because it’s faith, not science.
A while back, someone I know was excited and posted video a lecture entitled “Modern Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God“
” on another forum I frequent. He was being beaten up by many of the liberals and atheists on said forum, so he posted a link to the lecture and dared everyone to watch it. Being the open-minded sort, I indulged him and watched all 52:46 of it. I only provided a link to the video above because I can’t recommend wasting an hour of your life on such drivel unless you want to know what right wingers think of science.
I mean, it’s obvious the guy is a legitimate scientist and that he embraces the Big Bang and other scientific theories that his right-wing fans reject out of hand and for the first third of the program, you may actually learn a lot. In fact, I’m pretty sure the wingnuts who watch this thing just dismiss the first 20 minutes to “get to the good part.” You know, the scientific part. I mean, in the first part of of the video, he notes that a variation in the amount of carbon in our universe of more than 4% would mean the end of life as we know it, which kind of screws the climate change deniers, doesn’t it?
He does all of that to establish “I’m a scientist, DAMMIT!” before he goes straight into the irrational “Intelligent Design” shtick. He then switches gears and claims that the fact that we don’t understand why certain things happen, and because such precise measurements have to occur for life to exist, that’s evidence that there must be a God.
Basically, he apparently found that being a right wing Christian so appeaking (read, lucrative!) that he, a scientist, chose to throw science out the window. Mike Strauss, Ph.D knows what he’s talking about when it comes to science, but he apparently felt that he had to dismiss all science in order to make an “Intelligent Design” argument?
The arguments he uses are absurd because Intelligent Design is absurd. The arguments run along the lines of “Because it’s impossible to disprove that someone engineered the Big Bang, well, that’s proof of a designer.” It’s nothing more than a reworking of the creationism story using pseudo-scientific terms. I mean, because certain things are too complex for us to understand at this point in our existence, not only must they have been created by someone or something, but they must have been designed by the God portrayed in that Bible they seem to be fond of, although most never bother to read it.
It’s a funny thing about science. Scientists use evidence to find out what happened in the past, or what may happen when certain conditions are present. Science based on a LACK of evidence was once given a name; faith. By definition, faith is not based on science or evidence. Being a scientist doesn’t mean you can’t believe in God; of course you can. However, what you can’t do is to turn a lack of evidence into proof of something. This is the conclusion ID adherents draw in a nutshell:
The universe is too complex to have simply just appeared via a series of random occurrences in nature. Therefore, God must have designed and created everything in the universe.
I understand why that might appeal to some and sound logical; a lot of people want to believe such nonsense. And it is nonsense; take out the word “God” in the above statement and replace it with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Kanye West and you’ll find that the statement remains equally true.
ID is not science, it’s a political movement, and it’s actually anti-science. The reason crap like Intelligent Design exists is because of the GOP’s dependence on religious imagery. They don’t really hate science; they just realize that really allowing people to think about science might make them less religious, and they need religion to keep them in line.
Science is science, and religion is not. It doesn’t matter if you “believe” in climate change; the climate is changing, and we have to deal with it, regardless. The issue isn’t how we got here, but rather when or how we leave…