Big Bang?

[malignd at aol.com]

<<Intelligent Design isn't contesting the theories of evolution or 
quantum physics or the expanding universe, or suggesting that these 
things should be removed from the science curriculum. Is it?>>

What an idiot.  No.  ID isn't contesting quantum or cosmology.  Only 
Darwinian evolution, which it is certainly contesting, however poorly.  
That's the fucking point.  ID is creationism dressed up as (bad) 
science.

-----Original Message-----
From: jbor at bigpond.com
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:51:23 +1000
Subject: Re: Big Bang?

   On 05/10/2005, at 8:57 PM, Otto wrote: 
 
 > But nobody has said something like that. 
 
  It's pretty much that binary opposition exactly which is coming 
through from the more dogmatic atheists. 
 
  > Nobody ever claimed here that "science is truth," which of course > 
would be nonsense. Actually the Big Bang-theory is the most likely > 
explanation for the observable universe, not more, not less. It's the > 
data telling us that, but we know that our image might change if/when > 
we get better data. 
 > 
  > What is rejected is the claim that a non-scientific but religious 
way > of thinking like intelligent design makes, that it scientifically 
can > tell something about the origin of the universe. Therefor it 
isn't > intolerance but absolutely necessary to refuse ID (= an attempt 
to > keep people stupid). They simply have no data, only their belief. 
 
  From what little I've looked at, and it hasn't emerged as an issue in 
this country so I haven't really been following the uproar over it, but 
Intelligent Design isn't contesting the theories of evolution or 
quantum physics or the expanding universe, or suggesting that these 
things should be removed from the science curriculum. Is it? If it's 
correct that these scientific theories and the concepts and methods 
associated with the discipline will still be taught, then the claim 
that ID is "an attempt to keep people stupid" is a straw man. 
 
  As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is that 
ID proposes "God" as a first cause, whereas traditional science either 
can't or won't address that (pretty momentous) issue of a first cause. 
Not that there's anything wrong with that; agnosticism is a 
refreshingly honest and healthy stance to adopt in the circumstances. 
 
  I agree that proposing the theories of biological evolution or 
astrophysics as proof of the existence of "God" is unscientific. I'd 
also argue that proposing these theories as proof of the non-existence 
of god/s is equally unscientific. And that's leaving aside the issues 
of tolerance of and respect for people's beliefs, which I think are an 
enormously important aspect of this debate. 
 
 best 
 
  >>> Wasn't it you who had put up the binary opposition of science and 
>>> belief in this discussion? 
 >> 
  >> Not at all. In fact, it's precisely that binary opposition which 
I've >> been challenging: i.e. the "science is truth and light and all 
must >> kneel at its altar" vs "belief in god/s is primitive and 
idiotic and >> believers are intellectually inferior" argument. It's 
about as >> monstrous a sermon, and as far removed from the schema of 
Pynchon's >> work, as could possibly be imagined.