I really ought to check my e-mail more frequently. Blogger Blue Gal has been hosting a blogswarm against theocracy for the past few days, and I almost missed it. If you are a blogger, you can find out how to participate here.
What to say? Recent years have seen a powerful effort by members of the Religious Right to erase the line between church and state at all levels of government. We have also seen certain politicians use religion as a tool to manipulate voters. Both of these movements are very troubling.
While I will defend until death the right of all Americans to hold those religious beliefs that they may choose, I would remind them that the right to hold those religious beliefs is rather related to the right to swing your fist — it ends at my nose. Believe whatever you want, believe in God, or Jesus, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you prefer (I’m actually rather fond of the Pastafarians), but don’t try to force your beliefs down my throat.
And I know there are those who try to assert that science is a form of religion, and that if you are going to teach scientific theories like evolution in schools, you ought to teach other theories, like creationism — sorry, intelligent design — alongside it. I reject that argument. Scientists talk about theories and the scientific evidence supporting those theories as such because they recognize that further evidence may be discovered at a future date that forces a revision of those theories. What is taught as science is always our current understanding based on the best evidence currently available. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Thus calling evolution a theory is not an admission that there is no evidence to support it (there is, in fact, a wealth of such evidence, and we know for a fact that evolution and natural selection take place in modern times because we have documented evidence of the process occurring — that is what Darwin was writing about, after all, when he was in the Galapagos studying finches), but merely a recognition that at some point there may be a scientific discovery that forces us to reconsider and revise the theory of evolution in some respects. In other words, scientists (unlike many religious leaders) try to remain open to the possibility that they may be wrong about things.
Creationism or intelligent design, in contrast, is merely looking at everything and saying, gee, it’s all really detailed and complicated, therefore there must be some designer or intelligence behind it, which is god — and is thus a way of introducing religion into classrooms.
Now, there may very well be some intelligence at work in the universe, in the way that physics and genetics and evolution and other similar forces work. That intelligence could even be the god that various religions speak of. There is certainly plenty of room at the edges of what we know about science and astrophysics for such a god. Or it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point is, that whatever it is that is out there beyond the edge of scientific knowledge is, by definition, not science, and it should thus not be taught as science in our public schools. It is something more properly belonging in the realm of faith, until such time as proof becomes available, and thus best left for individuals to seek in houses of worship, not in public schools.
But enough of my intelligent design rant. On this, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I would call on all Americans to remember that many of our founding fathers came to this country to escape religious oppression in their countries of origin. In the years since our country’s founding, many others have come here for the same reason — my own family tree is riddled with such individuals. But the only way to ensure that America remains a land where people can escape the horrors of religious intolerance as our forefathers intended is by ensuring that we maintain some separation between church and state.
That is what the framers intended by the First Amendment to our Constitution: that America would remain a place where the government neither interfered with the free practice of religion (including the right to practice no religion), nor became the instrument of any religion or religious organization.
And although it has nothing to do with the rest of this post, and despite the fact that I have already said it twice today in this blog, I really think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.
-jane doe

2 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Sandman
We surely see squarely eye-to-eye on one thing in this post — I do not want to live under a government of men and women which dictates what I’m allowed to believe!!! Ever!!! Even if they agree with me, they shouldn’t have that authority over me!
I very much enjoy my freedom of belief in this country although I feel continually increasing pressure to suppress or deny my beliefs or risk feeling ridicule at least and possibly more intense pressure (such as loss of work or other persecution.) For instance, in your post alone (alleging an open-minded view of facts and theories) I feel as though you are putting “scientists” forth as superior intellects on a pure pursuit of truth versus those poor simple-minded creationists who can’t handle the complexity of the universe and thus run and hide behind “god.”
As you can tell, I see the world differently than you do. I find it interesting that two thinking people such as ourselves can reach radically different conclusions based on the same exact facts. The difference must stem from how we interpret the data (and somewhat the extent to which we each choose to focus on certain facts while minimizing others.) I believe that our interpretation has to do more with our underlying assumptions than the available information. How else can we both look at something like “natural selection” and draw such radically different conclusions?
At any rate, I would challenge your assertion about science and how it relates to the history of the universe. Science can have nothing more than theory when it comes to history. We can measure things here in the now and make assumptions about how the past may have created these things. However, without having someone who was there to observe it, conclusions will never be more than theory which will never be supported by science (which by my understanding of the term has to do with observation in contrast with faith with has to do with beliefs in the unobservable…such as the pre-historic past.) I would guess this is where the “science is a religion” discussion is coming from although I’ve never really met anyone who strongly held this opinion.
I would echo the saying that we as people tend to ridicule or fear that which we do not understand. I would suggest that you have chosen to focus your attention and belief system on what was presented to you as fact (but was largely theory) while ignoring or ridiculing all other theories as unenlightened. The truth is out there, but it can be tricky to nail down.
By the way, if you’re interested in another view of the facts check out http://allaboutgod.com/science.htm some time for how science supports the creationists view. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. The site isn’t the end-all, but it’s certainly accessible and interesting.
I’ll sign off with a quote which I feel is as at least as relevant today as when it was spoken back at our country’s birth — “Those who would surrender an essential liberty in exchange for temporary safety deserve neither.”
July 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm
jane doe
Hey, Sandman -
I fear you are missing my point (or perhaps I was not making my point clear enough). I am not advocating believing anything just because a scientist said it. There is plenty of bad science (and bad reporting about science) out there, and people should be taught to critically evaluate it. That is good and desirable.
What I am saying is that intelligent design theory is not science, and should not be taught as such. It is a religious theory, and thus it’s proper place is in church, not in public schools.
I will look at the website, though.