Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Disappointed with Shermer

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From EXPELLED Dr Caroline Crocker.

“Recently I attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as “looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena” and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.”

We were all subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs, and the demolition of straw men.

His characterization of ID was that the theory says, 1) If something looks designed, 2) We can’t think how it was designed naturally, 3) Therefore we assert that it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.) Okay everyone, laugh away at the stupid ID theorists.

I was astonished at how a convinced Darwinist, who complains about mixing science and religion, spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion.”

Get the full text here.

Comments
I've read that article before, and more like it, so I didn't dismiss it without reading it. If you would like to post one of the main points of the article and discuss it, I'd be glad to. However, it's not my job to go dissect an article you posted. Let me know a good point you think Calvert makes and then we can continue the discussion.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Uh, that’s by John Calvert, and I already know that I disagree with him about this, and I’m pretty sure he is wrong in respect to what the courts actually say.
Typical. Dismiss it without reading it. Please try not to work up a sweat with your shadow boxing here, Hazel.Lutepisc
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Why was my post deleted, this is what I wrote: -What is bad about that lecture? -I agree with the 3 step characterization of ID. Its appeals to the unknown, as does ID. -Obviously in a talk about evo/ID religion would enter. Why was the post deleted?? Your post implies that you either did not read Dr Crocker's opinion paper, or that you did not follow her logic. Please re read her paper. Your agreement with the three step description of ID shows you have not read any ID books. This forum is to serve the ID community, not to express uninformed opinions. idneteintown
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Uh, that's by John Calvert, and I already know that I disagree with him about this, and I'm pretty sure he is wrong in respect to what the courts actually say.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Hazel, there's a thorough discussion of "religion" as defined by U.S. courts here: http://tinyurl.com/cboo55Lutepisc
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
I see, and I see that you posted the 3rd or 4th definitions. Do you agree that if we accepted as primary the definitions of religion that you offer that any strongly held belief that people live by, such as Rush Limbaugh's political perspective, or a belief that expressing oneself through art is the most important goal in life, or any number of other things, would all be considered religious beliefs? Does that seem reasonable to you?hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
hazel, I just provided the definitions. If you want to know the source just click on each word "religion" in my comment above. That is just a start.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Defining religion as anything that someone zealously believes in dilutes the meaning to the point of making it useful. Are Rush Limbaugh's politics a religion - he is certainly zealous about living by them. It just doesn't work to expand the definition of a word so broadly that it doesn't make the distinctions it needs to make. When one says he wants to study religion, he certainly doesn't mean all the things covered by Joseph's "definitions".hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Hazel, Some vegetarians as well as politicians hit the near religious. So absorbed in their moral codes and prescribed way of living that describing them as religious would be close to hitting the mark. Honestly the differences between, say, Richard Dawkins and a religious zealot are not much, aside from their differences in world views. Richard Dawkins is like a preacher who speaks on behalf of the supreme beings known as Chance, Natural Selection and Random Variation. Heck, he goes off and preaches about the reasons behind humankind's existence (basically, that we have no reason to exist). Whether it be from a specific "religion" or from atheism, both try and do the same thing: accurately describe reality. Even if one wanted to say that atheism isn't technically a religion I would be hard pressed to say whether that really makes any difference whatsoever. In reality, their world views can cause just as much grief as any religion can. Think of the mass murders of hundreds of thousands and/or millions during the Crusades in the name of Jesus. Then think of the multiple millions killed by Hitler and/or Stalin in the name of the "higher race" and/or the will of "nature" (as Hitler himself put it within his Mein Kampf).* The results are more or less the same, regardless of religion or lack of religion. Whatever you want to call it, when zeal turns into anything other than the wish to help others it always corrupts, regardless of religious/non-religious beliefs. * From Hitler's Mein Kampf: "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."Domoman
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
It seems that those definitions could apply to political beliefs, Consider Chris Matthews and the rest of MSNBC, and Obama :-)tribune7
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Where did you get those? It seems that those definitions could apply to political beliefs, a belief in vegetarianism, a belief in the free market system, or all sorts of other things that no one would claim were religious.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Joseph @12
eintown, Shermer holds a mischaracterization of ID. Therefor anyone agreeing with him also holds that mischaracterization. Now you understand the moderation policy.
The result of stating a mischaracterization in a forum that respects the principles of free and open discussion is that one or more participants will correct the misunderstanding, leading to greater understanding for everyone. The response to eintown's post suggests that the censor responsible wasn't capable of refuting it.
It is close to impossible to have a discussion with people who choose willfull mischaracterization of the alternative PoV.
I agree. People who repeatedly assert that modern evolutionary theory makes no predictions certainly fall into this category. JJJayM
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
religion:
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
religion:
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
religion
4. single-minded devotion to or zealous conviction regarding anything.
Atheism fits those three definitions. Do you want more?Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
eintown, Shermer holds a mischaracterization of ID. Therefor anyone agreeing with him also holds that mischaracterization. Now you understand the moderation policy. It is close to impossible to have a discussion with people who choose willfull mischaracterization of the alternative PoV.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Tragic mishap says, "Generally I’ve always argued that atheism is a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs about ultimate reality. That is, I think, the best definition." Wikipedia says,
A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.
Dictionary.com says,
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I think these two definitions are similar to most definitions of religion that you would find. Saying that "Religion is a set of beliefs about ultimate reality" is a definition of religion is incorrect. Beliefs about ultimate reality are philosophical, but not necessarily religious.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
jerry,
Apparently the evolutionary biologists forgot to tell him that NS was a weak force that had almost nothing to do with the evolution debate
without natural (including sexual) selection, there is no evolution. how can this be considered a weak force?Khan
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
I was censored because I agreed with Shermers characterization of ID??? Wow... this is certainly an open forum.eintown
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
You would think the atheists would be embarrassed by their performances. That is the amazing thing about this whole debate, the inanity of their arguments. They operate on bogus information, use false logic and then take glee at how dumb the ID or those who are religious people are. Shermer was on record not too long ago about the power of natural selection in the evolution debate. Apparently the evolutionary biologists forgot to tell him that NS was a weak force that had almost nothing to do with the evolution debate. We get the same tired arguments here. I subscribe to the John Davison assessment that they are prescribed. Yes as Joseph said, it takes quite a bit of faith to be an atheist, blind faith that does not recognize the science that is available to them.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
tragic mishap @6
Generally I’ve always argued that atheism is a religion.
Have you also always argued that bald is a hair color? ;-) (I don't mean that to sound snide, I've just always liked that explanation of atheism.)
Religion is a set of beliefs about ultimate reality. That is, I think, the best definition.
That's not bad, but it doesn't apply to "weak" atheism, the lack of belief in a god or gods. I have two friends who hold to this view, without making any positive claims about reality. "Strong" atheism, the belief that there are definitely no gods, does of course fit your definition. JJJayM
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Joseph: Generally I've always argued that atheism is a religion. Religion is a set of beliefs about ultimate reality. That is, I think, the best definition.tragic mishap
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Thanks id.net. That is pleasantly surprising. I will use this.tragic mishap
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
tragic mishap:
On a more serious note, can you reference where atheism has been legally defined as a religion?
Probaby due to the obvious "worship mode" atheists have for Father Time and Mother Nature. It takes quite a bit of faith to be an atheist...Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Shermer doesn't have anything to offer beyond slapstick and cheap laughs. He is just another clueless tool.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Tragic mishap see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 and http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-idnet.com.au
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
"Sciensuality"? Is this related to "sensuality"? If so, count me in! That goes for the two beers too! On a more serious note, can you reference where atheism has been legally defined as a religion?tragic mishap
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
1 23 24 25

Leave a Reply