BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Intelligent Design, Creationism, And Rightwing Social Memes

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:52 / 23.09.05
Would it be totally ridiculous to suggest that when the conservative types try and impose a non-evolutionary meme on society, they at some level mean this to affect all elements of that society- i.e. removing all possibilities of change and growth, concreting the idea that A is A is always A?

Therefore, teaching children that a dog has always been a dog and was never a mouse-like creature or a fish, and that it always will be a dog, prepares them for a worldview where a theif is always and nothing but a theif or a drug addict can never be cured?
 
 
Quantum
14:43 / 23.09.05
Possibly, absolutist values and beliefs tend to be entwined, it's certainly not a progressive trend. How prevalent is the teaching of creationism over evolution in the US? How much is it on the rise?
 
 
tectonic
23:23 / 23.09.05
Intriguing idea. On the other hand, I'd imagine that a socially conservative creationist/IDer would certainly believe that, for example, homosexual orientation might be "curable". I think they might distinguish (any creationists out there?) between innate/natural categorisations/situations which ought not to be tampered with (between species, the sexes, the market, races) and contingent/perverse ones (homosexuality, thievery, socialism).

There's certainly a creationist/Biblical justification for the status quo, but I think that intelligent design doesn't necessarily imply a non-progressive stance - although in the real world that seems to be the case.
 
 
alas
01:34 / 24.09.05
Katha Pollit's most recent piece for the Nation, titled Intelligible Design makes an intriguing argument on these lines and also discusses the prevalence of at least avoiding evolution in US schools (note italics, which are mine):

[i]f what we're looking at is an America with an ever-larger and boxed-in working class and tighter competition for high-paying jobs among the elite, fundamentalism is exactly the thing to manage decline: It schools the downwardly mobile in making the best of their lot while teaching them to be grateful for the food pantry and daycare over at the church. At the same time, taking advantage of existing currents of anti-intellectualism and school-tax resistance, it removes from the pool of potential scientists and other creative professionals vast numbers of students, who will have had their minds befuddled with creationism and its smooth-talking cousin, intelligent design. Already, according to a study by University of Minnesota biology professor Randy Moore, 40 percent of high school biology teachers don't teach evolution, either because it's socially unacceptable in their communities or because they themselves don't believe in it.
 
 
Quantum
08:47 / 24.09.05
40 percent
Naah, surely not! That's completely frickin' insane, looking at it from the UK at least. 'because they don't believe it' these are Biology teachers?! Have any posters been *taught* Creationism, evolution as a theory?
What do they say about the pepper moth?
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
13:47 / 24.09.05
On the other hand, I'd imagine that a socially conservative creationist/IDer would certainly believe that, for example, homosexual orientation might be "curable".
Hurm. Yes, but this feeds into the idea that biological types and functions are immutable: "basic human nature" could be seen as heterosexual couples having sex for the purpose of reproduction, therefore making those naughty bumsexualists representatives of "disordered sexuality" who can be fixed and brought back to the norm. Which was in fact the case until fairly recently anyway. (Was it 1976 when a the American Psych?iatrists? Association took homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders?).
To a certain extent, I feel the original framing of this discussion hints at a conspiracy-style viewing of the situation: certainly, Legba's assertion that

when the conservative types try and impose a non-evolutionary meme on society, they at some level mean this to affect all elements of that society- i.e. removing all possibilities of change and growth, concreting the idea that A is A is always A?

brings to mind the image of secret meetings of Secret Conservatives, all stroking their beards and saying things like "Ahahah! Now they will all succumb to our devious plotting!". It might be more constructive to frame the discussion of the relationship between the non-teaching of evolution and promulgation of right-wing social memes with relation to the possibility that in order to hold the sort of conservative views that would inspire you to want to teach intelligent design rather than evolution, you must already have a good deal of intellectual capital invested in the beliefs that "A is A is A" and "each according to their kind". In other words, it might be the case that the promotion of intelligent design is symptomatic of a wish to impose rigid, unchanging societal structures in the first place, rather than the direct means by which this imposition might take place. I think I may have contradicted myself at some point in there.
It might also be interesting to discuss the effect that knowledge of evolutionary theory has on "conservative"/right-wing models of social interaction: I've always felt that the arguments I've heard for Kantian* deontology don't take into account the idea that conflicting situations don't always result in eventual stasis, but in both sides adapting to combat the other in a way that can't always be predicted.

*I don't claim to have any nuanced understanding of Kant whatsoever, so all criticisms are accepted. Please don't hurt me.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
23:34 / 24.09.05
In other words, it might be the case that the promotion of intelligent design is symptomatic of a wish to impose rigid, unchanging societal structures in the first place, rather than the direct means by which this imposition might take place.

Certainly. Yes, my original post is basically talking about an imagined conspiracy. I should really have phrased it better- I was looking for a conceptual link between those ideas.
 
 
LykeX
08:16 / 25.09.05
The pepper moth is easy, since it doesn't prove evolution, only selection. The moths are still moths, and black moths did exist before, so no new species or abilities has arrived. It's only a case of adaption to a changing environment.

Besides, fundamentalists never seem to have a problem with facts. If evidence is found that proves evolution, obviously it has been placed by god to test the faithful.
 
 
Hieronymus
23:25 / 25.09.05
It seems like the scientific community might actually be challenging the creationist drive to push rationality off the cliff.

This from the NY Times:

Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back

Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.

One company, called B.C. Tours "because we are biblically correct," even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists' explanations for the exhibitions.

So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on.

Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members.

"The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up," she said. "Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take a more proactive role in evolution education."

Here's to hoping anyway.

Still can't believe that goddamn BC Tours is in my state.
 
 
Mirror
15:03 / 26.09.05
Still can't believe that goddamn BC Tours is in my state.

What I can't believe is that the Post offered up what amounts to a front-page free advertisement for them. You can bet that they're going to be able to multiply their business with that kind of exposure.

The resurgence of religious fundamentalism in the U.S. is really puzzling to me, because it doesn't appear to be rooted in poverty, disenfranchisement and lack of education as has historically been the case. It's a thoroughly mainstream, middle-class phenomenon. So, what is it about modern society that makes dogma and rigid conformity so appealing to so many people? Is it just that religion doesn't ask you to think?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:18 / 26.09.05
Fundamentalist religion certainly, let's not forget that most of those Enlightenment fellas that paved the way for 'The Way We Live Now' were religionistas.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:21 / 26.09.05
The resurgence of religious fundamentalism in the U.S. is really puzzling to me, because it doesn't appear to be rooted in poverty, disenfranchisement and lack of education as has historically been the case.

No, this time it's got the backing of the "with us or against us" jihad/crusade mentality. Were I a Christian fundy, now would seem to me to be the perfect time to start reeling 'em in.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
19:48 / 26.09.05
So, what is it about modern society that makes dogma and rigid conformity so appealing to so many people? Is it just that religion doesn't ask you to think?

There seems to be a general cultural trend towards this (not thinking, I mean), though I'm not sure how recent a phenomenon it is. The example that comes immediately to mind is television and the related changes in the way people consume news- sound bytes have gotten shorter and shorter, and people's attention spans in general seem to have suffered accordingly (or possibly the other way around). Look at the effect this has had on politics, for instance- candidates now have to distill their beliefs down into easily-consumed bullet points because in general people aren't willing to put the time and effort into figuring it out for themselves (how many times did we hear the phrase 'compassionate conservatism' or 'plan to win the peace' in the last few years?)

Stoatie makes a good point- the various conflicts the US is involved in right now are framed religiously- ie Muslim extremist terrorists attacked us, Muslim clerics denounce us, etc. Americans see themselves as under attack by people with an utterly unwavering us-and-them worldview, so it seems to me that many Americans are falling back on a similarly rigid worldview to try and make some sense of that- which is where ridiculous oversimplifications like 'the terrorists hate us because we love freedom' come from.

Come to think of it, I wonder how the situation now is different from, say, the Cold War, when everyone lived in constant fear of nuclear annihilation and saw themselves in opposition to a vast, evil force that was the opposite of everything they stood for. Actually, might this be similar to the extreme anti-communism of the McCarthy era, just in a different form- a religious response to a perceived religious threat?
 
 
rising and revolving
01:37 / 27.09.05
I think it's very conceited for non-religious to posit that the reasons people turn to religion are based on a desire to "not think" - you wonder why there's a divide?

I suspect you'd be better of looking at why people feel a spiritual void in the US these days - especially the wealthy middle class. It's that spiritual hole, I'd say, that is being filled by fundamentalism.

I find fundamentalism a bit sad and a bit scary - but I find the sense of spiritual emptiness quite understandable.

Me, I'd posit that the breakdown of the traditional family and community structure in the modern US is responsible for a lot of this ...
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
15:36 / 27.09.05
Valid point, Rising- obviously I'm guilty of thinking that on occasion (since I, y'know, responded to it upthread). At the least it's a gross generalization, but it's a very destructive one too- I'm pretty sure that generalizations like that are a large part of why it's so easy to cast democrats as 'elitist, big city New England liberals' and what have you, which is obviously totally counterproductive.

However, I think that in any discussion of a fundamentalist worldview, there are similar questions that do need to be asked. Religious fundamentalism presents an inherently uncomplicated view of the world- and viewing the world in black and white strikes me as much, much easier than viewing it in grey. So 'not thinking' might not be an attraction to fundamentalism, but on the other hand fundamentalism seems to give easy, quick answers to extremely difficult questions, or simply ignores that there is a question in the first place.

Side note- has this (the attraction of religious fundamentalism) been discussed before anywhere?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:45 / 27.09.05
I guess part of the attraction of creationism is that you simply don't have to get your head round the concept of evolution. You don't have to worry about how the underlying system works.
 
 
Mirror
16:41 / 27.09.05
While I suggested "not wanting to think" as an attraction for fundamentalism, I don't think that the complexity of the underlying mechanisms of evolution are that important to the attractiveness of creationism as a worldview.

I think it has much more to do with the fact that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that their existence is the outcome of a process that involves a great degree of randomness (not saying that selection is random, but obviously mutation is). People want to feel necessary, or at very least wanted, and evolution effectively says to them, "the universe didn't intend for and doesn't care about you."

Secondly, there's the strong desire that people have to distinguish themselves from "lower" animals. As far as social costs of teaching creationism goes, I think that this is a biggie because this sort of worldview inherently alienates individuals from their environment by placing them apart and makes it difficult for people to understand that their individual actions have ramifications on a global scale that can ultimately come back to affect us. By placing ourselves apart from other animals, it makes it easy to think that our futures are governed by a different set of fundamental laws.
 
 
grant
17:04 / 27.09.05
I think Mirror's on the money there.

I also want to point out, as regards the opening post, that Conservative Christianity is founded on the idea of radical change. The central event in the worldview is being born again -- the one aim of the ideology is salvation, which is a sort of glorious, miraculous transformation on a fundamental level.

They also view themselves as social revolutionaries, following in the footsteps of Martin Luther and the Reformation, cleaning out the corruption of the established ways just like Jesus cleaned out the Temple.

So it's not an anti-change epistemology by any means.
 
 
robertrosen
20:04 / 27.09.05
I believe you've all touched on some truth, and yet I think it also has to do with change. People hate change. Evolution is the utmost form of change. What about insecurity and fear? If there is always some place or someone to turn to when you've reached your limit, have no answer, no way out, nowhere to go, then life becomes more bearable.

I myself feel offended when others mock my spiritual feelings. I understand evolution and believe in it and in a higher power. Does that make me ignorant, less likely to think or maybe I just evolved differently? Is it possible that the various differences in the formation of the brain actually dictate tendencies toward spirituality, or not?
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
22:44 / 27.09.05
So it's not an anti-change epistemology by any means.

True, but at the same time it's based on the idea that the country used to be 'more moral,' and the social revolution that they're trying to bring about is a return to that state in the past (no matter that it probably didn't exist). I suppose it's also based on change in that, in order to be saved one has to change themselves, ie accept Jesus, with the end result being the ultimate change of salvation. Once you've gotten to that state though, it seems fairly static. Hmm. I think this might relate to something Tectonic brought up way back at the start of the thread:

I think they might distinguish (any creationists out there?) between innate/natural categorisations/situations which ought not to be tampered with (between species, the sexes, the market, races) and contingent/perverse ones (homosexuality, thievery, socialism).

So, certain types of change (accepting Jesus, salvation) are necessary and good, while (many) others are unnacceptable and should be changed back. Robert, does this seem accurate?

That's an interesting question Robert raised about brains being wired differently for spirituality. I read an article somewhere a few years back suggesting this might be the case- I'll try and find something about it. Might be more deserving of a Lab thread though.

AND finally, Rising mentioned upthread that the breakdown of traditional family and communal structures might be in part responsible for the rise of fundamentalism, which I think deserves some discussion. Breakdown/preservation of traditional family structures is tossed around a lot as evidence of a 'moral decline' and as evidence of the need to fix things. Does anybody know anything about traditional non-Western family structures and the 'moral values' (attitudes towards sex, etc) of those societies (that might be too vague and threadrottish, I'm not sure how to word it).
 
 
robertrosen
00:09 / 28.09.05
Change, in most adults, requires understanding. Lack of understanding may create thoughts of failure, fear of failure and thoughts of separation from ideas and concepts associated with loved ones. This kind of deep down emotion may be part of a person's psychological foundation. Their base of fundamental reality deeply imbedded in their younger more impressionable years by people they unconditionally trusted and loved. To ask them to consider another reality may shake their very foundation, a foundation built on various forms of faith, and potentially passed on from generation to generation. Is it possible that these beliefs have been so much a part of the foundation of the human existence that over thousands of years they became genetically encoded? This may have altered the way the brain actually receives messages and perceives reality. Is it possible that the brain of a radical right wing conservative and that of a radical left wing liberal are so different that they can never see eye to eye? Returning to the morality of the past, for some, would not be a return at all. The point is, they may have never left. They may not be capable of leaving, or changing until it is their time. Isn’t it ironical that what may eventually change them is evolution itself!

For me, you can logically explain and scientifically prove with mathematical precision the non-existence of a Creator and I will not accept it. My Lord God and my faith will always be real and wonderful to me.
 
 
alas
00:53 / 28.09.05
you can logically explain and scientifically prove with mathematical precision the non-existence of a Creator

I can't tell if you're serious, actually, but I don't think any one can do this. It's more that a Creator is not necessary to the processes; if a functioning intelligence brought it all to existence in the first place, it's really outside the system. Science just doesn't really go there.

As to the aesthetic appeal of a Creator, well, ... I haven't actually thought this through, and I'm not a scientist, but, well--from where I stand, I can't say science doesn't involve or value aesthetics, because it does seem to value an elegant equation, a solution that is predictive and useful and as sharp as Occam's razor. Clean, modernist lines. A creator, under that aesthetic, is (arguably)--well--not elegant. It's odd, clunky, a little superfluous... Rococo?
 
 
alas
01:01 / 28.09.05
[Oops. That rather mystifying discussion of aesthetics, above, happened because I mis-remembered robertrosen saying "real and beautiful" rather than "real and wonderful." However, I had fun thinking about the aesthetics of science so I'm going to leave it. Sorry for the confusion, however.]
 
 
Quantum
10:58 / 28.09.05
For me, you can logically explain and scientifically prove with mathematical precision the non-existence of a Creator and I will not accept it. robertrosen

That's nice. In other words your Faith (in the existence of God) overrides your reason (your faith in logic, science, math etc.) which is all well and good, but-

Should schools teach based on Faith or Reason, robertrosen?
 
 
Quantum
11:45 / 28.09.05
Is it possible that the brain of a radical right wing conservative and that of a radical left wing liberal are so different that they can never see eye to eye?

No.
 
 
Quantum
12:43 / 28.09.05
I notice elsewhere you say Using religion to force your ideas on others is not only dangerous, but the exact action that my God would frown upon.

So I'm assuming that means your God would frown upon the teaching of non-evolution?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:38 / 28.09.05
But then, nobody ever said they were. That doesn't change the fact that there are numerous, significant differences between those two outlooks, differences that cannot be uncritically dismissed with a "hey man, we're all human beings inside".

Somehow this thread seems to be conflating a lot of different things - creationism, Christianity, religious fundamentalism, being right-wing, and being fixed in your ideas - which, while they clearly do occur all at once in a significant number of people, don't necessarily have to occur all at once - in fact, demonstrably they don't. So I have to say I find some of the ideas about connections between these phenomena to be dubious at best...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:58 / 28.09.05
Somehow this thread seems to be conflating a lot of different things - creationism, Christianity, religious fundamentalism, being right-wing, and being fixed in your ideas

Probably because Creationism as a recognised philosophy is of Christian, fundamentalist origin and is generally touted at the moment by those who are also right wing and from the evangelical side of the church.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
19:04 / 29.09.05
Somehow this thread seems to be conflating a lot of different things - creationism, Christianity, religious fundamentalism, being right-wing, and being fixed in your ideas

Also, even though the direct ideological link between these concepts is disputable (Although Nina makes an excellent point above), it's surely worthwhile to examine the relationships and interplay between them when they turn up together with such frequency and influence?

Furthermore, it seems to me that while the memeplex (can't think of the right word due to cold, so bear with me) of Conservative Creationist Christianity does rely fairly heavily on ideas of change (via accepting and following Jesus, the idea of Judgement, etc), these changes are all essentially rather sudden, and digital in their nature. That is to say, you can't exactly be "sort of saved": there are only two* possibilities for your eventual spiritual destination, and both of these are pretty final, according to most mainstream viewpoints. In fact, the best illustration of this is the creation of the earth in Genesis, where everything turns up fully formed and "according to its kind". My point being that there's a difference between change and evolution, and this seems fairly vital to the discussion. Unless it's been said before in the thread, and I've missed it due to being ill and tired, in which case, apologies.

*I /think/ Limbo is an exclusively Catholic concept, although I may be wrong...
 
 
grant
19:54 / 29.09.05
Both Limbo and Purgatory are exclusively Catholic* concepts. Although the Church does trace the concepts back to Bible passages, the sola scriptura crowd doesn't buy the line of reasoning.


Interesting point about the on-or-off pattern of thinking. I don't know if one can build a dialectic of Conservative Christian theology. Which is a little weird, since it's all modeled around a synthesis of God and Human.


* (Roman, I think, although they may pop up in Eastern Rite & Eastern Orthodox churches as well.)
 
 
ibis the being
14:53 / 30.09.05
On the other hand, I'd imagine that a socially conservative creationist/IDer would certainly believe that, for example, homosexual orientation might be "curable". I think they might distinguish (any creationists out there?) between innate/natural categorisations/situations which ought not to be tampered with (between species, the sexes, the market, races) and contingent/perverse ones (homosexuality, thievery, socialism).

Not a creationist myself, but raised as one and familiar with the doctrine. The answer to this is "increasingly, no."

A lot of Christians, especially a number of Catholics, are beginning to accept the idea that one can be "born homosexual," or that it might be innate rather than learned behavior - in the same sense that alcoholism might be innate rather than a learned behavior. I.e., it's an illness and not your fault for having it, but as a Christian you must pray for God's help in keeping it (that is, homosexual urges, I suppose) at bay. So it's not curable, but manageable (with God's saving grace).

However, I'm not sure how much this is a progressive Catholic view and/or how much fundamentalist Protestants are feeling compelled to adjust their views on homosexuality (from learned to innate). I'm also not sure if the Intelligent Design movement is strictly a fundy phenomenon - I'm under the impression that a good number of American Catholics see evolution as compatible with their religion, but I have no stats to confirm that.
 
 
grant
18:40 / 30.09.05
As far as I can tell, you've pretty much described the official Catholic stance on homosexuality (the term "objective disorder" is central).

Most Catholics (I'd say all, but there's bound to be a few goofier ones out on the fringes) have no problem with evolution, because a lot of Catholic doctrine is based on the process of interpreting the Bible. Catholics are not literalists; unlike fundamentalists, they (we??) don't believe in a literal Rapture and Judgment Day either. Officially, at least.

This would be a major part of the reason why many fundamentalists think there's something very wrong with Mother Church, and that the Pope is leading people to their doom with a bunch of whipped-up tales and mystical hooey. Operation Rescue = OK, but that metaphor business? Dicey!
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:04 / 30.09.05
stumbled onto this interesting (and amusing) OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

some have even replied.
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:30 / 30.09.05
Another thing I thought I could point out stems from the book What's a metter with Kansas where in the author suggests that one of the strengths of the Conservative/Republican(& I'll include fundimentalists) movement is that they present themselves as in-opposition-to unfair or morally dubious systems. In this context, it's the fight against these systems that are more important than actual victory. I wonder if this is a factor in the choice to "pick a fight" Intelligent Design vs. Evolution.

In forcing such opposition might there be an opportunity to lure a less informed demographic into alliance with an larger socio/political scheme?
 
 
robertrosen
22:41 / 30.09.05

Robert Rosen: For me, you can logically explain and scientifically prove with mathematical precision the non-existence of a Creator and I will not accept it.

Quantum: That's nice. In other words your Faith (in the existence of God) overrides your reason (your faith in logic, science, math etc.), which is all well and good, but-

Should schools teach based on Faith or Reason, robertrosen?


robertrosen: For me the answer to your question is a simple one. Schools should be teaching both Faith and Reason. I feel that Faith, whether we believe in it or not, has always influenced humanity to a great degree. Anything that has such incredible influence needs to be studied and taught and researched. It exists. It‘s a fact of life. Ignoring it would make no sense. Spaghetti theory just doesn’t have the weight necessary to be taught. If it did, I’d say right on! I understand that the majority can be wrong. In fact, this happens quite often, but this isn't about wrong or right. It’s about what is!!!!!

Rosen: Is it possible that the brain of a radical right wing conservative and that of a radical left wing liberal are so different that they can never see eye to eye?

Quantum: No.

Rosen: To a certain extent, I disagree. Sure, on occasion we will have agreement between radical left and right, but look at the world today. Surely, based on weighting, large majorities just refuse to agree. It makes me seriously wonder about the physical differences between the two. Are Homosexuals born differently from others? Same thing, yes?

Quantum: I notice elsewhere you say- Using religion to force your ideas on others is not only dangerous, but the exact action that my God would frown upon.

So I'm assuming that means your God would frown upon the teaching of non-evolution?

Rosen: I believe that the key word is force. Making students aware of what a large % of people from all walks of life, regardless of geography, are thinking and therefore doing, makes sense to me. Dissecting the why seems to make great sense, yes? Forcing one kind of belief or mandating faith, as a fact of life would be outrageous! This I do not support! Obviously, I cannot speak for my God. I can only assume that any intelligent force would respect the act of study and research.

Tarquin: it's surely worthwhile to examine the relationships and interplay between them when they turn up together with such frequency and influence?

Rosen: Agreed 100%.

As far as change being different from evolution, evolution is just change happening over time.

Being saved is a process that comes about over time as well. That time is different for all that are saved. It happens when the last piece of the puzzle falls into place, when the equation comes into balance.

To Mr. Tricks: Funny and amusing, but makes no sense to me. When 70-80% of the world goes to church to worship The Spaghetti Theory, then we should consider teaching it.

To me teaching is not saying that anything is forever. Every scientific “fact” is only good until it is disproved or enhanced.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply