Not so intelligent, by design

By R. David Brown

Intelligent Design (ID) is a new label for an old argument that proposes a “designer” at work in creating the complexities of life. It attempts to take gaps in evolutionary science and inserts, by implication, the concept of God, claiming that complexity of the human biology and the natural world can only be explained by some sort of outside, intelligent influence.

The design theory actually pre-dates Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), with one of the major proponents being the English theologian William Paley. Paley came up the Watchmaker Analogy (1802): If we find a watch in a field, we infer that it was not created by natural processes acting blindly, but rather by human intellect and design. Further, the natural world has ample evidence of a supernatural creator. This theory was virtually swept away with Darwin’s ground breaking work.

As science progressed beyond Darwin’s observations some, most notably the religious community (and for obvious reasons), remained committed to the concept of design. Most recently it has reemerged as the pseudo-scientific ID, and seeks to exploit the scientific community’s inability to explain every aspect of every discipline, especially in the area of molecular biology. In effect saying, if it is so complex that it can not be explained right now, there must have been an intelligent or divine hand at work behind the scene.

Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority in the scientific community reject ID and its component concept of irreducible complexity (see Michael Behe), it has become a fiery issue in recent years and now is being tested in the courts. Proponents of ID are primarily seeking its inclusion in the science curriculum at the secondary education level, arguing its merits as a scientific theory rather than religious belief. Great care has been taken to avoid language that would place ID in the more accurate category of Creationism.

It is my opinion that ID is nothing more than dressed up teleological argument and a blatant attempt to inject God into the classroom. When confronted, advocates for ID claim that it is a scientific theory offered as a reasonable alternative to evolution. Unfortunately, ID does not have any supporting empirical data and therefore can not be treated as a viable scientific theory.

Drunk on the success of electing an evangelical president and the emergence of moral values as a central issue, Christians now feel it is their religious duty to bring God back not only the public square, but also to the classroom. There is a reason that a belief in God, or designer, is called a faith – because it can not be physically, scientifically or otherwise proven to exist.

ID belongs in the home or church. Leave the classroom for science.

___________________________________________

Additional reading:
------------------------

William Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity - here

Michael Behe - here

Intelligent Design Network - here

Talk Origins - here

Discussion on Philosophy Forums - here

--------------------------
technorati tag: Intelligent Design

Just War Theory, why Richard Land and friends are wrong

By R. David Brown

After seeing George W. Bush’s evangelical comrade, Richard Land, on several panels discussing the election, the role of religion in our society and the war in Iraq, I thought it was worth revisiting one of the issues he was so vigorously discussing in the early days of the Iraq war – Just War Theory.

For those unfamiliar with the topic, Just War Theory was developed primarily by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica as a set of criteria that must be met prior to going to war and also in the conduct of war itself. While much of the scholarship on Just War is catholic, protestant and secular alike have embraced the concept and often use Just War as the standard when analyzing the appropriateness of military action.

Just War Theory was one of the favorite arguments used by the Christians on both the sides of the debate about the Iraq war and was employed often by evangelicals and other conservatives. As much now as then, I am surprised at the lack of diligence in the presentation of Just War, especially related to the accurate representation of scholarly interpretation of the theory and its application to the situation in Iraq. In many cases, it appears that there is a real thirst-for-blood rather than a well-reasoned, consideration of the theory.

Looking at the two key concepts - jus ad bellum (what conditions make it justifiable to go to war) and jus in bello (what conduct is right in war), a case for Just War fails on several of the necessary conditions. Examining jus ad bellum, the argument that the central criterion of “Right Intention” has been met because the United States seeks to remove the despot, Saddam Hussein, is an incorrect interpretation. While it is universally understood that Saddam Hussein is/was a brutal dictator and the intent to remove him admirable, it does not qualify as “Right Intention”. An examination of jus ad bellum and the criterion of “Right Intention” leads to a completely different interpretation: war can only be justified in response to aggression. In the case of Iraq, a direct act of aggression towards the U.S. (or possibly our allies) - neither of which occurred.

Assuming, for a moment, that the conditions that make it justifiable to got to war were met, jus in bello (right conduct in war) would also present several problems in declaring the satisfaction of Just War Theory. The first issue is the concept of “Proportionality”. The generally accepted interpretation of “Proportionality” is that the means employed should be proportional to the aim of war. That is to say, war should not be conducted in such a way as to inflict more harm (destruction) than it is intended to alleviate. In addition, there is a direct reference to the prohibition of the killing of civilians.

The interpretation of jus in bello (right conduct in war) by many evangelicals and other conservatives was to relate the events of September 11, 2001 and the suffering of the Iraqi people as justification and satisfaction of “Proportionality” - again, not in keeping with the generally accepted interpretation of the concept and also failing the test on the following grounds:

(1.) as witnessed in the first Gulf War, civilian casualties would certainly be high (bringing the discussion current, some estimates place the number as high as 30,000). While there is some room for disagreement on what level of civilian casualty is acceptable, this loss of innocent life fundamentally fails jus in bello.

(2.) even if the regime of Iraq was not innocent, which is certainly accurate to say, the Iraqi civilian population is. The death of non-combatants is unacceptable in any modern interpretation jus in bello.

With the lack of support of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, one can only conclude that there must be some deeper desire on the part of evangelical leaders to promote war in the Middle East. Their euphoria regarding God’s divine intervention in the presidential election(s) has surely caused confusion in distinguishing between political opinion and sound religious/philosophical reasoning.

Richard Land, Jerry Falwell and the countless pastor-pundits who feel compelled to skew Just War Theory as means of furthering an aggressive interventionist foreign policy might want to consider a new tact - a more Christ-like, compassionate world view.


-----------------------
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2002 Statement on Iraq and Just War, here

-----------------------
technorati tag: Just War
Richard Land

The Daily Zen (8 Feb 2005)

"the path to enlightenment is littered with wackiness"


G.I. Jane gets dirty

Girls, I mean soldiers, gone wild !!

...and we thought our tax dollars were going to waste

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female GIs flash breasts, thong in mud-wrestling contests
-Associated Press

The mud-wrestling babes weren't coeds but MPs. And the scene was an Army-run detention center in Iraq.

The New York Daily News reports female MPs mud-wrestled in October, with a crowd of male soldiers cheering them on. According to snapshots obtained by the News, one young military woman lifted her T-shirt to expose her breasts, while another revealed her thong panties.

Those involved are reported to be members of the 160th Military Police Battalion, an Army Reserve Unit from Tallahassee, Fla.

The unit has since returned to the states. Military officials say one female soldier was demoted for indecent exposure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

More comments by Ward Churchill

I have written previously on the subject of Ward Churchill's statements and haven't read anything yet to change my opinion. I am still disturbed by his continual suggestion that violence, of the 9/11 variety, is the proper way to change policy.

The following are a few links to recent articles on Ward Churchill:

*More radical comments by prof weighed (Denver Post)
*University of Colorado cancels Churchill's speech (Denver Post)
*Churchill's statement from January 31, 2005 (Indymedia-Bay Area)

Again, I agree with much of Churchill's take on the contribution of U.S. policy in the creation of resentment, and the resulting violence, in the Middle East and beyond.

technorati tag: Ward Churchill

The Daily Zen (7 Feb 2005)

"the path to enlightenment is littered with wackiness"


Osama Bin Laden has been captured!

Osama Bin Laden on toast

...and we thought he would never be found. Click here for details



technorati tag: Osama Bin Laden Captured

The Daily Zen (6 Feb 2005)

"the path to enlightenment is littered with wackiness"


Wife accused of giving man lethal sherry enema
By Richard Stewart (Houston Chronicle)

Only in Texas would someone take their cocktail up the back bumpty!
----------
ANGLETON - Investigators say a Lake Jackson woman caused her husband's death by giving him a sherry enema, causing his blood alcohol level to surge to 0.47 percent -almost six times the legal intoxication limit...
Click here for link to full story

Ward Churchill demonstrates the left is not always compassionate

Considering myself to be a thoughtful, well reasoned member of the the leftist tradition, I am compelled to comment on the the post 9/11 essay by University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill.

For a little background click HERE or HERE and his recent response to the current backlash HERE.

If you don't feeling like browsing the above links, the following is the primary offender and deals with the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon:

Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire — the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved — and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” — a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” — counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in — and in many cases excelling at — it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.

There are so many problems with his statements and while I support his freedom, academic and otherwise, to promote his opinion, I think that he does more damage to his cause and credibility than good by spewing such hatred. Understanding his critique of capitalism and the effects of our corporate dominated economy on foreign policy, categorically pronouncing the work-a-day employees of the WTC as culpable and somehow deserving a fiery death is reckless and bordering on insanity.

Little Eichmanns? That is just nutty. If to be engaged in capitalism is to be like Eichmann, then most of the population is guilty. Bad label and even worse logic. Yes, the WTC was a great symbol of capitalism but to consider a reasonable combat target (that is if you accept his premise that the 9/11 attackers were engaged in combat, rather than terrorism) is to offer a preference of one type of violence over another - economic "violence" being viewed as evil, while the downing of the towers as justifiable and a form of payback.

The current geo-political dynamic is littered with possibilities in terms of reasonable criticism of economic, political and social interaction. Senselessly attacking the victims of 9/11 is neither scholarly nor representative of those on the left. Bad form Churchill.



technorati tag: Ward Churchill

Senate Votes 60-36 to Confirm Gonzales as Attorney General (NY Times)

Poor choice: torture memo, lousy record in Texas...step up from Ashcroft?

Coffeehouse Christians

Like many Americans, I like a good cup a joe (or Chai) and enjoy lounging at the local coffeehouse. Being a firm believer in doing my part to bolster the economy, not to mention enabling the barristas to afford a wide array of clogs, I eagerly shell out 5 dollars for a 50 cent beverage at least four times a week. I sit in the over-stuffed chairs reading, hacking away on my laptop and chatting on my cell phone - a perfect example of a 21st century, mobile-ready, cyber geek. You know the type, backpack full of gadgets worth more than their car.

When you see a coffeehouse portrayed on TV it always seems to be a very hip environment, with lots of funky patrons engaging in interesting conversation or the brooding set wallowing in existential angst. The type of place where you are just as likely to run into an anarchist as a couple on a first date. This type of ideal coffeehouse is what I have been searching for, and while I know it exists somewhere, it has eluded me thus far. Instead I only find its evil twin - Starbucks - bland and uniformly stocked with housewives, business folk and a new incarnation, the coffeehouse christian.

The coffeehouse christian is a versatile sort. No longer bound by the usual haunts of church, christian bookstores, good news clubs and teary-eyed promise keepers meetings, the emboldened 21st century christian is equally at home in the convenience store of coffeehouses, Starbucks. Armed with all the high-tech gadgets, good ol' fashioned bibles and a latte, they unabashedly embark on a crusade to convert the unsuspecting, coffee sipping unbeliever.

An evolved and highly adaptable creature, the coffeehouse christian has learned the lessons of the past and no longer leads with the old classic, "have you heard the good news?" or "do you know Jesus Christ as your savior?" . Taking cues from both the business world and self-help gurus, they employ a much more subtle and salesmen like approach, using ingratiating lead-ins like, "that looks interesting, what are you reading?" or "that looks like a cool laptop". Friendly opening, get you talking about your interest and then go in for the Jesus roll.

I was the victim of an attempted Jesus roll recently. The coffehouse christian used the old "what are you reading" hook. Thrown off by its size, I think he was under the impression my book was some sort of religious text. It was actually Blackwell's Companion to Political Philosophy, which is a disturbing 700+ pages. Not to worry, he quickly shifted gears and decided to ask a few inane questions about the nature of our political system and, according to him, the socialist/communist trajectory of the healthcare system. As if anything but the unbridled capitalistic nature of our current healthcare system would lead straight to the depths of eternal damnation (a view I am sure many Republicans share).

From there the conversation meandered, but it seemed as if there was something on his mind. Sensing that he was indeed a coffeehouse christian, I decided to give him the opening that he was looking for... I mentioned that I enjoy comparative religion. Oh the look of joy on his face. Being a relatively clean cut white boy, I am sure he assumed that I was a christian and was studying other religions merely to garner more ammunition to confront the unbelievers and members of the wayward, false religions. He quickly adjusted to a more relaxed posture and began to lean in for a more deep and meaningful conversation about Jesus. "I believe that Christ guides every aspect of our lives and has a plan for each of us", he said. How many times had I heard that one before? There must be some sort of handbook of cliches given out at each proselytizing prep class.

As he droned on about witnessing and his personal walk with Christ, I began to worry that if I let this continue much longer I too would be labeled as a coffeehouse christian. Not wanting to simply tell him to hit the bricks, I contemplated possible responses that might make him want to leave voluntarily. Atheist? No, he would only try harder. Jewish? Damn, Jews for Jesus messed that one up. Maybe I should make up a lie and tell him that I am gay. With gay marriage being such a fiery issue for evangelicals, it might have a shot. But wait, don't christians have some sort of sexual conversion, remind the evil gays that they are straight program?

I was at a complete loss when my cell phone rang. "Important call", I said. Ah, the tech equivalent of talk-to-the-hand. I was free to be rude without really being rude. No exchange of phone numbers. No invitations to church or bible study. Just a quick handshake, nice talking to you and see ya' later. Maybe there is hope. Maybe our technology can actually help shield, as well as connect us.

tecnorati tag: Coffeehouse Christians

State of the Union

Live Blog

Right out of the gate, George W. Bush addresses fiscal responsibility. He intends to limit the growth of government spending while eliminating 150 wasteful government programs.

*Real courage from a spendaholic president. Lets start with scaling back the $400 billion defense budget.
-----------------

Touches on frivolous lawsuits/ tort reform

*Nothing new here

-----------------

Make healthcare affordable: comprehensive healthcare program, w/credits for low income workers, increased health savings accounts, medical liability reform, credit for small business owners.

*The only answer to the problem is universal healthcare.

-----------------

The big ticket item, Social Security: claims that SS is heading toward bankruptcy. Claims that by 2018, SS will be taking in less than it is paying out. Also claiming that by 2042 the entire system will be completely bankrupt.

*This is simply not true. Talk about fuzzy math. Try looking at the Congresional Budget Office (CBO) numbers - oh that's right, he doesn't read. Maybe Rove can read the summary to him. *This statement received many groans and boos from the Democrats.

For those over 55 years old, the system will not change in any way.

*Except the decrease in benefits... don't worry about it - trust me!

Possible options on the table: indexing pymts to price index, cutting benefits, raising the retirement age.

Does not want to increase payroll taxes.

For young people, voluntary personal retirement accts: allowing younger workers to set aside part of the amount that is currently taken out. Allows you to will that $$ to children/grandchildren. The $$ will be the employees. Up to 4% of total payroll tax. Claims this will extend "ownership" to young americans.

*"Ownership society" is one of those phrases that really has no meaning. Lets substitute "Unbridled Capitalism" or "Gift to Wall Street" - yee haw!!

----------------

Marriage: supports constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

*Emabracing the evangelical/christian stance against gay marriage

----------------

Wants judicial appts to receive an up/down vote

----------------

Proposes initiative to keep young men out of gangs.

1st lady will head a broad effort to reach out to faith based amd community orgs to promote literacy, etc.

-----------------

Expansion of the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction.

-----------------

Here we go...the glory of war and all of our wonderful military prowess

We will stay on the offensive against terrorism "until the fight is won"... is that possible?

The U.S. will continue to build coalitions to create peace and combat terrorism.

Our ultimate goal is to end tyranny in our world. *Lofty goal - not realistic

The U.S. does not want to impose our form of government on anyone else. *that is what we say, not what we do.

Palestine: $350 million for palestinian economic and institutional reform
*I thought we had completely forgotten about the Palestinians

Egypt and Saudi Arabia: to lead the charge of democracy in the middle east
*Word!

Syria: end all support for terror and open the door for freedom
*A warning to Syria, you are on the list!

Iran: give up uranium enrich program and plutonium reprocessing *Another warning, remember the "Axis"

-----------------

Iraq: fighting terrorism in Iraq so we do not have to face them here at home...
*he cant actually believe this tired old line. Saying it over and over still doesn't make it true.

Praises the Iraqi elections. Iraqi's have earned our respect for their courage in voting.

Safia Taleb Al-Suhail, Iraqi human rights activist, was one of the Iraqi's brought to the SOTU address and received a standing ovation.
*I have a warm and fuzzy feeling

Will not set an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Iraq must meet criteria before we move on (democracy/representation, security, no threat to neighbors) *It doesn't look like we will be withdrawing anytime soon.

Will help injured U.S. soldiers recover (standing ovation from joint chiefs)
*It took alot of complaining by Republicans and Democrats to get this one rolling

Honors fallen soldier Sgt. Byron Norwood of Flugerville TX, parents in audience seated behind 1st lady. Mother receives hug from Iraqi, Safia Taleb Al-Suhail. (Long standing ovation) (President had tears in his eyes)

----------------
Other lesser topics
Environment: more homegrown energy, more nuclear production, ethanol,
promoting his clear skies legislation

Reform tax code: bi-partisan panel working on refoms to tax code.

Immigration: temporary guest worker program, tighter border control

----------------
END OF SPEECH

The Prez was interupted 61 times by applause.

Overall, not terribly inspiring. Good delivery.

Best moment: tearful embrace of Iraqi and fallen soldiers mother.

----------------
*Full text of the State of the Union speech is located here.

technorati tag: State of the Union