one of my last ditch attempts to say anything meaningful because there's really nothing meaningful left to say when there's too much left to be done

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Skee has posted his response and link to a generally unreadable article on Intelligent Design, ontology of chance, and the installing of these ideas in a school curriculum. The introduction of Intelligent Design ideas, something that is being proposed in Pennsylvania (my god! not even the south!) serves as a weak shield for teaching Creationism. Of course we shun Creationism. But why? Do we live in a overly technophilic society where science and its precepts have replaced the heretic idols of institutional religion? Personally, I think Intelligent Design is hogwash, and if I'm teaching science, I'm teaching science's principles... the church of science. If however, through a random morphing of stray molecules, suddenly the subject is metaphysics then yes, the question merits attention.

There's a rather disturbing comment later on in the article by Sellison:

"evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.'

Further on, he said that one can't just say that evolution is science, creation is religion, period. One has to have some other"

So far so good. I agree. But then... holy crap... deep end ...

"Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. But that is what it does, evolution is the anti-god gospel used to gain entry into our schools and convert our children to the religion of Secular Humanism. The First Amendment demands that Intelligent Design be given equal time in our schools to the religiou fantasies of the evolutionists, or better that neither should be taught in our publically funded schools, and children should let their parents help them understand how the glorious world was formed.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush


This is exactly my problem with this whole nonsense. Nobody discusses anything these days without creating its enemy, and bringing in religion. Is it still possible to discuss ideas without falling into binary thinking?

So how do we wiggle out of this wormhole?

I was reading a debate between the new pope, when he was still an archbishop of something or another, and a staunch atheist professor. The pope had a hard time excluding the idea of rationalism from faith. The professor said that Faith makes rationalism absurd. They are mutually exclusive and yet coexistant. I would agree that faith makes rationalism absurd, and rationalism knows not of the existence of faith. Faith cannot exist without rationalism, because faith builds its proper logical system from a priori grounds. Rationalism is merely a system of building a structure of logic from material grounds. Materialism seeks to prove the dubitable nature of our material existence. And in the end, faith depends on the completely unprovable nature of the objective world. A priori baby... the freakin' ourobouros.

And you wonder why all I find myself capable of saying is I got drunk last night. Hunter S. Thompson, not long before he offed himself said that "I feel shocked and embarassed to be part of the first generation to leave the country in a worse condition than how it was given to us." I would say "I feel repulsed and horrified to be part of a generation that has no idea how to think a way around its collective suicide."

I'm going to sleep. Off.