I’ve been pondering the general statement of objectives of the Intelligent Design Network intended to plead for objectivity and against the forced orthodoxy of naturalistic assumptions in the teaching of origins. The first two points dealt with the subjectivity of explaining the unobservable events of the distant past by making inferences from present processes and the insistence that those inferences be given the status of irrefutable fact. While those points are very well crafted, Item C is the part of the IDNet statement of that I find most critical.
"Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations of origins support the central tenets of non-Theistic Religions, while the implications of Teleological explanations support the central tenets of Theistic Religions. Both Theistic and non-Theistic Religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics."
This is a point I wish others in the debate would make and would argue in the courts. ID is routinely dismissed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is accused of being religion falsely clothed as science. So ID, to the secular establishment, is not permissible because it would violate the wall of separation between church and state. The implication of this portrayal is that ID forces a religious view where naturalistic views of origins do not. This is a completely false and absurd assertion.
The framers of the ID Net proposal are completely correct in asserting not only that both viewpoints have an unavoidable connection to religion, morality, ethics, but that the naturalistic viewpoint promotes religion as well, just religion of a non-theist stripe.
Consider Humanist Manifesto I, from 1933, which stated exactly this point very clearly:
Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. …To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.
The intent of Humanist Manifesto I was to establish a secular, non-theistic religion for the purpose of addressing the same questions religions traditionally deal with, specifically, “Where did we come from?”, “Is there purpose and meaning in existence?”, “What rules should govern behavior?”. The entire enterprise of naturalism is intricately in harmony with the “religion” of humanism. Its many tenets, from the Manifiesto, include:
…(humanists) regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
…man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.
Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious.
…there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom.
Manifesto II in 1973 went much further to define ethics and morality in decidedly non-theistic terms based on the conclusions of naturalism.
… science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.
Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction.
In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.
It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.
The Second Manifesto also clearly stated the implications of naturalism for politics – a one-world-ish trend toward a global community.
We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.
To suggest that the inclusion of ID in public education, (which does not include the banning of the teaching of Darwin), is an unwarranted breach of the separation of church and state is rather dishonest when one considers the implications of teaching Darwin alone, banning ID and giving full intellectual and spiritual shelter to views that are self-identified as a secular religion. It is hypocritical, but hidden below the surface, because only “theistic” religions are associated with religion and only “natural laws” are allowed to be considered as discussible causes in “science”.
It is telling that the only concession proponents of ID would ask for is the simple allowance that some natural phenomena might not be fully explainable by natural law alone. That is all that is requested, and that proposition is resisted with vigor and venom. It must be understood that the particular details of ID arguments are less of concern to the naturalist than the mere suggestion that natural law may have its limits. Repeatedly it is the insistence that science must be limited to explanations dependent on Natural Law alone reveals the inherent bias against the very notion of the supernatural. It also gives the lie to the suggestion that naturalism is neutral toward religion. It is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment