![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thoughts on ID and other random things
Feeling sort of scatter-brained today, so I'll give you a whole bunch of stuff:
I suppose I should complain about how, now that there is a forthcoming forum purge on GAFF, all my reviews will vanish into the abyss of the internet, and will never be heard from again. Well, I've decided not to whine. I am wondering though how we're supposed to keep track of what's already been reviewed before reviewing it again.
FFVIII and Kingdom Hearts badfic reviews in progress, but my muse is still missing. Tell her to get back here posthaste please.
Quote of the Day:
From the NY Times Magazine Article on the release of the Norton's Anthology of Children's Literature, regarding Harry Potter:
Mr. Zipes called the Potter books, "the ideological champions of patriarchal society," adding: "They celebrate the magical powers of a boy, with a girl - Hermione - cheerleading him. You can predict the outcome."
Which raises the question, if we could use a word editor to swap the gender, and some of the clothing, of all of the characters, would it then become a good story? Possibly, but this type of logic is apparently beyond me, which is why I would never make a good literature major, I can't just let it go. In this case, I think the underlying lesson is that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Fordham's Review of US State Science Standards for K-12 education is out. You can get a copy here, although they are sort of lengthy. I am glad to report that California officially pwnzers all of you, even though that uppity Virginia is getting close.
Note, this has nothing to do with how well science is taught, only how good the standards are.
And in that note, some thoughts on Intelligent Design:
I'm wondering if, in the hallowed halls of the Discovery Institute, the bastion of Intelligent Design located in Seattle, whether there is some hint of consternation showing through. Intelligent Design, as a theory, has finally penetrated through the layers of public ignorance to be exactly where it's been trying to get all these years-in the spotlight. They've achieved the first phase of their plan. But now comes the hard part, the knock-down, drag-out fight with the force that could end their years in the ring before they even get started.
This isn't science. If Intelligent Design is the new three hundred pound gorilla in the ring, Science is King Kong, and is busy hanging off the Empire State Building swatting down airplanes. Besides, Intelligent Design is the latest in a long line of theories, and it's finally evolved to the point where there can never ben any scientific evidence against it, regardless of how wrong it may or may not be. This is because Intelligent Design, in its most scientific form, essentially mirrors evolution. It predicts that life got to where it is through the process of evolution, and that perhaps somewhere along the way there was a bit of intelligent prodding by some force or another that nudged things in the correct direction. If you could find evidence of the entire spectrum of life on Earth, and it corresponded perfectly to the predictions of evolution, ID would be nodding its head, and asserting that the intelligent force operated in the gaps in time when nobody could watch, nudging the chain just enough to bring improbable, but possible, events to the fore. This is bad science; a proposal of an astonishing new theory that can never be disproven, can never be proven, leaves no traces, makes no predictions, explains things that are already explained, and makes some pieces needlessly more complicated, would make a good thesis advisor roll their eyes at you. Regardless, they've reached the point where, to the average layman, they can hang in there and look enough like science that, without being proven wrong, they can exist in the public eye for quite some time.
But there is a seven hundred pound gorilla sleeping in the ring. It's old, tired and a bit flea-bitten at this point, but it's still a tough fighter, and it has a few rounds in it left. It's called Creationism, and I can't help but wonder if it spells the end of Intelligent Design as we know it.
In order to try to straddle the line between science and the religious origins of ID philosophy (we all know that they exist in some way, shape or form), ID has evolved quite a bit since it was calling itself Scientific Creationism. ID has been referred to as "Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo" before, but that's doing it a disservice. In reality, ID is Evolution without a heart. They've taken Evolution, taken all the ideas and the mechanisms and the lines of fossil evidence, and torn out the central mechanism of random mutation. Instead they've replaced it with a fuzzy and ill-defined beast I could call non-random mutation, whose boundaries nobody really knows.
As part of that, they've thrown out the old pieces that used to make it so easily identifiable as a religion. Literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis? Gone. Fossils as evidence of a Great Flood? Forgotten. Young Earth geology? Yesterday's news. This has been necessary to keep federal judges, and science standard writers, from throwing them out of the room. But they've been keeping it very quiet, and for good reason.
Because, as much as they want to distance themselves from yesterday's creationists, ID depends upon that large portion of Americans who interpret Genesis literally to support themselves. They desperately need the deep pockets of the Religious Right and other quasi-fundamentalist organizations to keep paying their bills. After all, they can't get university positions as Intelligent Design researchers yet-the positions don't exist. No university is going to hire a faculty member who can't even write out a concise definition of their field (a concise definition of ID is still in the air), especially not if they can't tell you what they will research. If they stuck to their theory, IDers would research the same things that paleontologists research, but with a much narrower theory, and why hire a less adaptable paleontologist when you can hire the real thing? Without any sort of actual evidence expected, it's not likely that IDers can go out to the National Science Foundation and submit a grant proposal. What would they look for? The only thing that ID researchers seem to agree is part of their duty is making presentations against evolution.
They need the pocketbooks of America's Religious Right to keep funding the Discovery Institute, and private research facilities and research chairs, to maintain that veneer of academic respect that will keep them in the fight, and in the public eye, for years to come. If they are to survive, when deprived of the usual lifelines of legitimate science, they need access to a source of ready cash. At the same time, they're stuck. In order to hold on to what piece of the market share and the public eye they have, ID has to reject most of the philosophies of the Creationist crowd, while getting everything they can out of the Creationist's wallet and their bin of public support.
Sooner or later, given their push to establish their guidelines in public schools, ID is going to have to write down their standards. At that point a lot of people are going to realize that ID is, at base, no different from the Evolution that they've been campaigning to keep out of public schools all these years. At the point, things may get ugly, as someone will attempt to use the opportunity to jump another comeback for Scientific Creationism, or possibly as IDs own allies turn on it for being too secular.
This is the fight that ID must be dreading, in whatever form it comes. After all, no matter how many times they get their noses bloodied in either Academia or in the courts, they can come home looking good, having fought the good fight against secular oppression, to the adoring cheers of their fans. As long as they have that infinite pocketbook to fall back upon, they aren't going away anytime soon. But Creationism can really do them damage, by sucking away their support, and challenging them in the public opinion of the people who really matter to IDs survival, their mostly-religious proponents.
In the end, I think in twenty years we'll be back where we were twenty years ago, Evolution dominating the science curriculum and the scientific world, Creationism a major force in religious life and in religious areas of America, and Intelligent Design having been forgotten. But I may be wrong. There may be more fight in the scrappy newcomer than I give them credit for. In that case, watch for a long, drawn-out struggle. Because before ID can begin to dominate any part of the scientific world, they'll have to force their allies to adopt the party line, and that's going to be one hell of a fight.
I suppose I should complain about how, now that there is a forthcoming forum purge on GAFF, all my reviews will vanish into the abyss of the internet, and will never be heard from again. Well, I've decided not to whine. I am wondering though how we're supposed to keep track of what's already been reviewed before reviewing it again.
FFVIII and Kingdom Hearts badfic reviews in progress, but my muse is still missing. Tell her to get back here posthaste please.
Quote of the Day:
From the NY Times Magazine Article on the release of the Norton's Anthology of Children's Literature, regarding Harry Potter:
Mr. Zipes called the Potter books, "the ideological champions of patriarchal society," adding: "They celebrate the magical powers of a boy, with a girl - Hermione - cheerleading him. You can predict the outcome."
Which raises the question, if we could use a word editor to swap the gender, and some of the clothing, of all of the characters, would it then become a good story? Possibly, but this type of logic is apparently beyond me, which is why I would never make a good literature major, I can't just let it go. In this case, I think the underlying lesson is that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Fordham's Review of US State Science Standards for K-12 education is out. You can get a copy here, although they are sort of lengthy. I am glad to report that California officially pwnzers all of you, even though that uppity Virginia is getting close.
Note, this has nothing to do with how well science is taught, only how good the standards are.
And in that note, some thoughts on Intelligent Design:
I'm wondering if, in the hallowed halls of the Discovery Institute, the bastion of Intelligent Design located in Seattle, whether there is some hint of consternation showing through. Intelligent Design, as a theory, has finally penetrated through the layers of public ignorance to be exactly where it's been trying to get all these years-in the spotlight. They've achieved the first phase of their plan. But now comes the hard part, the knock-down, drag-out fight with the force that could end their years in the ring before they even get started.
This isn't science. If Intelligent Design is the new three hundred pound gorilla in the ring, Science is King Kong, and is busy hanging off the Empire State Building swatting down airplanes. Besides, Intelligent Design is the latest in a long line of theories, and it's finally evolved to the point where there can never ben any scientific evidence against it, regardless of how wrong it may or may not be. This is because Intelligent Design, in its most scientific form, essentially mirrors evolution. It predicts that life got to where it is through the process of evolution, and that perhaps somewhere along the way there was a bit of intelligent prodding by some force or another that nudged things in the correct direction. If you could find evidence of the entire spectrum of life on Earth, and it corresponded perfectly to the predictions of evolution, ID would be nodding its head, and asserting that the intelligent force operated in the gaps in time when nobody could watch, nudging the chain just enough to bring improbable, but possible, events to the fore. This is bad science; a proposal of an astonishing new theory that can never be disproven, can never be proven, leaves no traces, makes no predictions, explains things that are already explained, and makes some pieces needlessly more complicated, would make a good thesis advisor roll their eyes at you. Regardless, they've reached the point where, to the average layman, they can hang in there and look enough like science that, without being proven wrong, they can exist in the public eye for quite some time.
But there is a seven hundred pound gorilla sleeping in the ring. It's old, tired and a bit flea-bitten at this point, but it's still a tough fighter, and it has a few rounds in it left. It's called Creationism, and I can't help but wonder if it spells the end of Intelligent Design as we know it.
In order to try to straddle the line between science and the religious origins of ID philosophy (we all know that they exist in some way, shape or form), ID has evolved quite a bit since it was calling itself Scientific Creationism. ID has been referred to as "Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo" before, but that's doing it a disservice. In reality, ID is Evolution without a heart. They've taken Evolution, taken all the ideas and the mechanisms and the lines of fossil evidence, and torn out the central mechanism of random mutation. Instead they've replaced it with a fuzzy and ill-defined beast I could call non-random mutation, whose boundaries nobody really knows.
As part of that, they've thrown out the old pieces that used to make it so easily identifiable as a religion. Literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis? Gone. Fossils as evidence of a Great Flood? Forgotten. Young Earth geology? Yesterday's news. This has been necessary to keep federal judges, and science standard writers, from throwing them out of the room. But they've been keeping it very quiet, and for good reason.
Because, as much as they want to distance themselves from yesterday's creationists, ID depends upon that large portion of Americans who interpret Genesis literally to support themselves. They desperately need the deep pockets of the Religious Right and other quasi-fundamentalist organizations to keep paying their bills. After all, they can't get university positions as Intelligent Design researchers yet-the positions don't exist. No university is going to hire a faculty member who can't even write out a concise definition of their field (a concise definition of ID is still in the air), especially not if they can't tell you what they will research. If they stuck to their theory, IDers would research the same things that paleontologists research, but with a much narrower theory, and why hire a less adaptable paleontologist when you can hire the real thing? Without any sort of actual evidence expected, it's not likely that IDers can go out to the National Science Foundation and submit a grant proposal. What would they look for? The only thing that ID researchers seem to agree is part of their duty is making presentations against evolution.
They need the pocketbooks of America's Religious Right to keep funding the Discovery Institute, and private research facilities and research chairs, to maintain that veneer of academic respect that will keep them in the fight, and in the public eye, for years to come. If they are to survive, when deprived of the usual lifelines of legitimate science, they need access to a source of ready cash. At the same time, they're stuck. In order to hold on to what piece of the market share and the public eye they have, ID has to reject most of the philosophies of the Creationist crowd, while getting everything they can out of the Creationist's wallet and their bin of public support.
Sooner or later, given their push to establish their guidelines in public schools, ID is going to have to write down their standards. At that point a lot of people are going to realize that ID is, at base, no different from the Evolution that they've been campaigning to keep out of public schools all these years. At the point, things may get ugly, as someone will attempt to use the opportunity to jump another comeback for Scientific Creationism, or possibly as IDs own allies turn on it for being too secular.
This is the fight that ID must be dreading, in whatever form it comes. After all, no matter how many times they get their noses bloodied in either Academia or in the courts, they can come home looking good, having fought the good fight against secular oppression, to the adoring cheers of their fans. As long as they have that infinite pocketbook to fall back upon, they aren't going away anytime soon. But Creationism can really do them damage, by sucking away their support, and challenging them in the public opinion of the people who really matter to IDs survival, their mostly-religious proponents.
In the end, I think in twenty years we'll be back where we were twenty years ago, Evolution dominating the science curriculum and the scientific world, Creationism a major force in religious life and in religious areas of America, and Intelligent Design having been forgotten. But I may be wrong. There may be more fight in the scrappy newcomer than I give them credit for. In that case, watch for a long, drawn-out struggle. Because before ID can begin to dominate any part of the scientific world, they'll have to force their allies to adopt the party line, and that's going to be one hell of a fight.
no subject
Wait, what?
*frantically hits "Your Site..." to find out what the frell is going on*
no subject
*reads about Intelligent Design because danAlwyn is nearly always interesting*
no subject
Basically, everything over a certain age vanishes.
no subject
Um, what? It sounds like they're predicting Harry will Save The Day And Get The Girl. Gah, it's bad enough we've got shipping wars and people insisting Hermione/Harry is canon, we don't need nonsense like this added to the soup.
no subject
Seriously, I can sympathize with him saying that they're not particularly deep, but neither is a lot of the Children's Literature that he's working with, and it does say something about the times. Complaining because of the gender of the main character makes him seem as shallow as the popular literature that he is trying to dismiss.
no subject
Actually, it'd be interesting to see how Harry Potter would read with gender switches in the main roles. Gender codification goes much deeper than just names and pronouns, so you might end up with accidental literature. Just imagine Blanche Dumbledore behaving exactly as her male counterpart does. Or Hermann Granger, who knits hats for house elves. Or Mr Weasley, who fusses about the house and children while Mrs Weasley sits meekly playing with plugs. It'd be a completely different story.
Now, I'm not denying that Zipes is talking with the wrong orifice in that quote, but the gender roles in Harry Potter are very entrenched in a patriarchal system, probably because of the literary tradition into which they fall. It's just the kind of stuff feminists and post-colonialists have can endless fun deconstructing.
On the subject of poor old ID (*repress snicker here*), have you come across Richard Swinburne's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne) work? He's done a lot of work in trying to make teleology respectable in a post-Darwin scientific work.
His basic line of argument is to make a distinction between two kinds of explanation - scientific explanation and personal explanation atributable to the free will of an agent. (He relies, I think, on Quantum indeterminism and on the wide spread 'common sense' view for his assumption that such a fish as 'free will' actually exists.)
Based on this distinction he compiles a heap of arguments, mainly with a teleological slant, and calculates their cumulative probability with the help of Bayes Theorem. In doing so he wants to show that theology can be rational and can provide a better and simpler explanatory base than science ever could. His final thesis is that God's existence is more probable than not.
If you ever stumble across his "The Existence of God", it's well worth flicking through. It's an absolute collander of an argument, but it's an interesting read.
no subject
I agree, you have to change more than just the gender of the characters to invert the work, but I'm still not sure about the conclusion. There are times when I also wonder if finding evidence of the patriarchal system (or any other literary construction) is like finding Bible Codes, you can find them in any work if you try hard enough. Maybe they're just part of the human condition, and are a universal theme, as such.
Sorry, my historian side is seeping through.
Swinburne sounds interesting, but like the kind of guy who I would spend more time arguing with than actually reading. Relying on Quantum indeterminism for anything is asking for bad luck, but each to their own. Still, I'll keep it in mind.