When I was growing up, I was one of those stereotypical kids who always asked, "Why?" I had an insatiable hunger to learn new things. And furthermore, whenever an adult would say I shouldn't or couldn't ask about something (for example, sex or religion), that only increased my motivation to learn about it. Clearly, there are a lot of kids out there who share the same attitude as me; the problem, of course, is that they lose that attitude once they enter the "Real World."
But I digress...
Back in 2004-05, I was an "Intelligent Design virgin" (for lack of a better word). I hadn't heard a single word about it. But when I did start hearing about it - through a smattering of newspaper and magazine articles - I was struck by the nasty, condescending attitude of the "respectable scientists" who refused to participate in a dialogue regarding the merits of I.D. compared to atheist materialism. In their judgment, there was NO controversy (as if just saying "there's no controversy" makes it so). Plus, anyone who challenged the scientific consensus wasn't just wrong, but so egregiously wrong that their intelligence and/or intentions were questioned and repudiated.
As someone who's worked in politics for my entire adult life, I was quite stunned by the nastiness displayed by supposedly "open-minded, rational, level-headed" scientists. In fact, with few exceptions, I had never heard a Democrat say something so nasty about Republicans (or vice versa), but here were scientists attacking the "other side" with unmatched vitriol. And the vitriol was all one-way. It came from the materialists; not from the I.D. advocates.
I couldn't believe this was supposed to be "science;" the temple of "scientific inquiry" was nastier, more adversarial, and more conformist than politics! Imagine my surprise!
But I was also intrigued. Just like that kid I mentioned above, the very idea that "there was NO controversy" and "questioning authority is BAD" made me want to learn more.
And as it turned out, there was a lot to learn.
When I started, I didn't have a dog in the fight. I sincerely tried to examine the I.D. debate with a genuinely open mind. And to this day, I continue to keep an open mind. Like Heather Manning, I will follow the facts wherever they take me.
And, at least for now, they've taken me into the I.D camp.
By not just opposing I.D. - but opposing it so VIOLENTLY - the radical materialists have developed a severe credibility problem. After all, what are they so afraid of? If the radical materialists were genuinely convinced that their system is "strong" and "true," they wouldn't feel the need to lash out at critics like a high school bully.
But the problem doesn't end there...Once the radical materialists damage their credibility, it opens the door to new questions...new concerns...new reasons to doubt their credibility.
For example, the scientific gatekeepers like to see themselves as cautious, conservative, humane, focused on hard, rock-solid evidence (instead of wishful thinking), and immune to silly (and sometimes dangerous) political causes.
Au contraire.
In the 20th century, scientists were leading advocates of eugenics and imperialism.
This made perfect sense: After all, Darwin had proven that "survival of the fittest" was the catalyst for evolutionary growth. And therefore, it was "right and proper" for the "fittest" races (naturally, the white race) should rule the "unfit, inferior races" (everyone else). Furthermore, the white overlords should practice eugenics to cull out "inferior people" from future generations - either through sterilization or extermination.
Don't believe me? Read From Darwin to Hitler. Or The Mismeasure of Man.
But that's all in the past, right?
I wish.
Today, the "scientific community" is once again showing its true colors by rallying around two weird issues: stopping "global warming" and increasing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
This isn't the place to discuss the merits of global warming and embryonic stem cell research, per se, but once again, the brutish attitude of the "scientific community" raises grave questions about their ability to be "society's guardians" and the "gatekeepers of truth."
In the case of global warming, once again (like the I.D. debate), we have a large, powerful, well-funded, vocal, and nasty majority refusing to engage in a rational discussion with scientists who have reached a different conclusion (either that global warming DOESN'T exist, or more likely, does exist, but isn't severe enough to require global governance, crippling Industrial Society, and radically reducing our quality of life).
As for embryonic stem cells...the "scientific community" insists that there should be ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS on embryonic stem cell research, and the taxpayers MUST pay that research too! They refuse any ethical regulation of this research, because - according to them - this isn't an ethical issue. Oh, but it is! In the words of Dr. James Thomson, the biologist who pioneered the field: "If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough."
Apparently, Dr. Thompson forgot to take his meds that day. Because according to the scientific consensus, embryonic stem cell research is "good" and anyone who doubts that is "bad."
And they say we're the ones who take things on faith!
In conclusion, "mainstream scientists" can't keep Intelligent Design under the rug forever. The debate WILL come, whether they like it or not. And the evidence suggests they are woefully unprepared for that debate. They have a severe credibility problem with the American people (a problem of their own creation). They have become intellectually lazy. And they have become just plain mean.
If you were a betting man, would you bet on that team to win?
-Todd
**UPDATE, JUL. 22, 2009**
Yesterday, I did a Youtube search on the phrase “Intelligent Design,” hoping to learn more about it. I thought there would be an even mix of pro-I.D. videos, anti-I.D. videos, and unbiased news clips. Rather, I was surprised to see that on the first 2 pages of search results, all of the videos were anti-I.D. (with names like “Stupid Design,” “Creationism Repackaged,” and “War on Science”).
Finally, I saw a news clip labeled “Eugenie Scott vs. Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design.” I clicked on it. The video began, “The Abrams Report with Eugenie Scott and Stephen Meyer. September 29, 2005). I thought, “Bueno, now I can watch some honest, good-faith discussion.”
But as I watched the video, I was appalled by the boorishness of the show’s host, Dan Abrams, who unfairly attacks the I.D. proponent Stephen Meyer in a belligerent, mean-spirited way. See for yourself.
I mean, seriously, what the hell is Dan Abrams so worked up about? Isn’t he a little bit embarrassed? I have to give credit to Stephen for being so restrained, because he would be perfectly justified in screaming back at Mr. Abrams or even walking off the set…
Anyway, I only brought this to your attention because it fits with my earlier conclusion that the nastiness of Darwinian materialists (like Dan Abrams) has given them a severe credibility problem…
I mean, imagine this scenario: If you were a cop who called in Dan Abrams for questioning in a murder, and your first question to Dan was: “Where were you last night?” and Dan immediately stood up, flailed his arms, and shouted, “How dare you ask me that question? This discussion has already been settled: I am innocent! I don’t have time for your circular logic!!!” wouldn’t you walk outside the room and whisper to your partner, “I think this guy has something to hide. Let’s hold him a bit longer for some more questioning.”
I know…for folks like me…who saw this kind of boorish behavior on TV 4 or 5 years ago, when the I.D. debate started penetrating the nation (on shows like the Abrams Report)…we thought – just like that cop - “hmmm, maybe Darwinism needs a little more questioning, after all.” And when we started questioning, everything started to unravel. And I mean everything. Not just Darwinism. But the entire atheist, materialist paradigm.
I’m sure Dan Abrams thought he won this debate. But he lost – and lost badly.
-Todd
No comments:
Post a Comment