Posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:22 PM PDT by gobucks
In 1993, the journalist Jonathan Rauch published a book called Kindly Inquisitors, in which he catalogued contemporary threats to the Enlightenment tradition of seeking truth through logical or empirical discourse. One of Rauch's points was that, while this (classical) liberal system for amassing knowledge appeared to be under attack from both the religious right and the multicultural left, in fact the two groups were making a version of the same argument: Mainstream science didn't accord their beliefs the respect they deserved, whether it was creation science on the one hand or feminist or Afro-centric science on the other.
Rauch's book has held up remarkably well in the twelve years since it was published. This is particularly so in light of the current debate over intelligent design (ID)--the idea, popular on the right, that life is too complex to have resulted from random variation. Even President Bush has suggested, as the creation scientists (and multiculturalists) of the 1980s and 1990s did before him, that both sides of the supposed debate be treated as legitimate in public school curricula.
But there was one thing Rauch didn't anticipate. At the time, he suggested that, even though creationists had adopted the tactics of the academic left--the demand for equal time--they still believed in objective truths. They just didn't think all of these truths were discoverable by science. By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the left--the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.
The animating principle of the postmodern left is the notion that truth follows from power and not from its intrinsic rightness. It's a conceit that began in the humanities but eventually spread to hard sciences like physics. "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination of the social," as postmodern pooh-bah Stanley Aronowitz has put it. What makes this approach so radical is its implication that the way to win intellectually is to win politically.
In making their arguments, the postmodernists rely heavily on the work of historians of science like Thomas Kuhn. It was Kuhn who famously argued that scientific knowledge proceeds as a sequence of "paradigm shifts"--revolutions in the way we understand the world--and that the shifts occur not simply when the evidence in favor of the new paradigm becomes overwhelming, but when the people invested in the old paradigm are in some sense defeated (which may not occur until long after they're proved wrong). Mainstream science has taken from Kuhn the belief that evidence and logic are necessary, if not quite sufficient, conditions for a paradigm shift and that, in the long run, successive shifts bring society closer to objective truth. Where the postmodernists go awry is in their emphasis on Kuhn's relativism.
Unfortunately, these postmodernist ideas have become a staple of the ID movement. As laid out in a strategic memo produced by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the leading backer of intelligent design, "Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces." There was nothing particularly objective about this view, according to the IDers. Instead, applying the same reading of Kuhn that the postmodernists embrace, they argue that it was simply the result of a political struggle between insurgents and the establishment. (In fact, the IDers frequently cite Kuhn to this effect.) Probably the clearest example of this comes courtesy of Bruce K. Chapman, the Discovery Institute's president. "All ideas that achieve a sort of uniform acceptance ultimately fall apart, whether it's in the sciences or philosophy or politics, after a few people keep knocking away at it," he recently told The New York Times. But that's nuts. Germ theory, relativity, the idea that the earth is round--with apologies to Tom Friedman, the fact that all have withstood the occasional challenge suggests that truth counts for something.
Chapman might protest that he's simply proposing a more accurate alternative to evolution, the same way Darwin proposed a more accurate alternative to creationism. But ID isn't a new theory, just a new attempt to advance an old one, with some new empirical claims thrown in for good measure. As Jerry Coyne has pointed out ("The Faith that Dare Not Speak Its Name," August 22 & 29), scientists can discredit ID using the exact same evidence they used to debunk creationism. Once you realize this, it's no longer possible to interpret Chapman as echoing the belief in a steady progression toward truth.
Like all conservatives, of course, the IDers claim to decry relativism and to embrace absolutes. But, for them, the claim is logically incoherent in a way it wasn't when it came from their creationist predecessors. When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID (to the extent that it makes empirical claims) are, you're free to assert its truth; you just can't call it science. The creationists had no problem with this; they just rejected any science that contradicted the Bible. But the IDers aspire to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the only way to claim that something empirically false is scientifically true is to question science's capacity for sorting out truth from falsehood, the same way postmodernists do.
Conservatives were quick to point out the danger of this view in the '80s and '90s. They argued that a science that rejected the idea of truth was vulnerable to the most inane forms of intellectual hucksterism. And they were right. It's not hard to imagine scams like cold fusion or the Scientologist critique of psychiatric drugs gaining ground in a world where science's ability to identify knowledge has been undermined. (Among other monuments to postmodern thought was the idea that E=mc² might be a "sexed equation" that "privileges the speed of light over other speeds," as Belgian-French theorist Luce Irigaray once asserted.)
Americans don't like thinking of themselves as backward. As a result, the risk from science-rejecting creationists hasn't been particularly acute in recent decades. But most people don't have very strong views on the philosophy of science. If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.
"You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised."
ID supporters "assert that it is science."
Asserting that something is science does not make it so.
"And yet you somehow think this vindicates creationism!"
No, it vindicates my argument that the 'conservative' Christian-haters here at FR share something deeply in common w/ high brow leftists over at TNR. Coincidence, or, ahem, evidence of Intelligent Design?
All I can say is that when 'Republicans' on the "Premier Conservative Web Site" find that the Premier Left Wing high brow magazine has it dead right of just how hopeless Christians are ...
Well, I think its good that the association, which I have always believed is quite real, is observed...
Without us, the folks that own the Republican Primary system, the folks that get elected now wouldn't stand a chance if folks like yourself ran the primary system...
So, exactly, what does this mean?
It means that this wing of scientist types within FreeRepublic are leftists indeed hidden inside a horse. It means they have one goal: if you can't defeat the enemy, divide them after you infiltrate them.
And by painting bible centered Christians as leftists, you get a really effective way to smear the Republican Party core as 'uncool'. Given that shows like South Park are all the rage, and that it is more and more cool to slam true liberals, the only way that remains back to power, if you are a leftist, is to false flag those people who are being followed; and though Christians are not effective in all things, they are quite effective in many.
By the way, I will share with you how I found this article. I have been regularly looking for articles, published by Right Wing magazines, which 'thoroughly discredit' the IDers , and how in in the long run IDers are so terribly bad for the GOP. I still can't find them; maybe you have a reference? Maybe George Shultz runs a popluar magazine I have never heard of...
By the way, the TNR had this to say in their concluding paragraphs in "How I.D. Hurts Conservatives":
There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.
Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.
......................
I find TNR really likes this subject. And that the nazi types, (leftists are consistent), still are painted as 'right wing'. Why do you figure that is Jenny, and more interestly, why do you figure that so many 'Amens!!' are coming from PH's Corner on FR?
It is possible that I am just fantastically disoriented here ... but be a good Freeper please, if you believe this is true. I ask you to direct me to that document which will 'orient' me, and help me see the wisdom of you and your collegues.
Or maybe that one Freeper who used to be a rabid IDer, but due to the care, sensitivity, and excellence of persuasion of Randian types, joined the 'rational side'...
For in truth, I really don't have any desire to be the leftist's fool, and it is quite possible I am wrong in my outlook. The last thing I want is an authentic Freeper to think I subscribe to 'postmodern nihilism'. If that were true, then, by definition, it would be ME who is the leftist, disguised as a conservative, who is attempting to 'split' the core of the true GOP.
And waking up to that truth would be a real bummer...
don't you agree?
Every now and then, someone blunders into the truth. When he doesn't realize it, that makes the tableau all the more enjoyable.
The important thing is to remember the article's reasoning. It's bang on.
For what it's worth (and I do not claim it is a great deal, btw) I did read Johnson's book, when it was first published (and at a time when I had a far more overtly religious outlook). I had hoped--then--that it would help remove growing doubts I had about my own religious dogmas.
In fact, it helped push me in quite other (and rather better) directions. Johnson is an intelligent and articulate lawyer, and it was some of the clear weaknesses in his misrepresentation of science that showed me how thin my own grasp of science was and motivated me to undertake a better study.
What Johnson does articulate well is his sense of spiritual 'emptiness' from evolutionary theory, which for him (and many, I suspect) is a driver for seeking 'truth' elsewhere. But it is easy to see the compound fallacies here. It is not--and cannot be--a 'role' of science to provide spiritual truths (although the truths it reveals happen to have great beauty--but that's another topic). One might as well say that, because astronomy does not give us spiritual satisfaction we must teach astrology alongside it in order to provide "meaning."
Science is an unrivalled tool for expanding and refining our knowledge of the natural world--and is entirely content to leave 'supernatural' matters firmly out of scope. But some religiously-minded folk just seem to be unable to accept this, demand that science somehow validate their own religious 'truths.' This demand is completely unreasonable and can only end in tears. Why do some religious folk keep picking this fight? Science and religion occupy separate spheres--something the framers of our Constitution understood very well indeed.
One could suggest that reconciling the natural truths of science with 'spiritual truths' of religion is a matter of personal conscience; it is certainly not an issue for the science classroom. Given the dreadfully poor understanding of even basic scientific methodology one encounters in these threads, it is clear science teachers have more than enough to do as it is.
My objective, empirical observation is that you have are a bit arrogant.
"That's how we know that it's a load of garbage"
The entire book is garbage eh? How about an example of something he has contended that you believe is garbage, and why you believe it is garbage other than the fact that you disagree with him?
The book is not garbage and Johnson is no fool....the fact is he has evo on the ropes and they are unable to effectively counter him...
"Asserting that something is science does not make it so."
You pro evo's really get me....your quote of me was taken out of context so as to mean something completely different than what I said...go back to my original post.
This is a Michael Moore tactic. You evo folks do not help your case at all with your replies. Actually I am a bit surprised at this but I guess I shouldn't be. You have a worldview to protect.
The truth hurts. ID is creationism. The creators of the ID movement say so themselves. Consult the Wedge Document.
Now there is a well thought out and accurate reply. I like it. Thank you Sea Lion. I don't agree with the whole post but I am too weary of this exchange to continue on. Got to go to work.
Be honest. ID cannot look for causes because it starts with a statement, then ignores evidence.
You are incomprehensible. Try writing in a language that uses syntax.
They mean the same thing.
I'm glad there is no sub-group among the left that can 'undermine' Liberalism!
So...
If 'natural selection' ends up selecting 'ID', THEN what????
HIS Noodly Appendage will GET you for that!
And quit LYING about it!!!
--EvoDude
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then....
And 50% of generalizations are WHAT??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.