TK incinerating one of Mac's ideas. Kinda pretty.
______________
Two days ago there were a minimum of 17,000 posts on the Internet about "Intelligent Design" (ID) and no small controversy after some recent statements by George Bush Jr.
Two days I ago I was up at the Mac-Family cabin as a guest with a host of others, including a pack of at least 35 children, a fire-breather, an 8 foot tall woman, a dog that looks like a medium-sized multi-colored bear, a head of a Russian seminary, and an engineer who likes to write books about gay football players.
Mac's father (FM) was perturbed because a long article in the S.F. Chronicle never took the time to define what ID was.
Bad journalism to be sure.
One thing you have to say about this group is that they charge in where angels fear to tread. They eat well, drink plenty and then weigh in on any taboo topic they can find. If they get bored they get on stilts or spit fire.
Religion, politics, relationships...what-have-you...there is nowhere they will not go. But I noted also a deep undercurrent of respect that seems to allow for a wide array of views. In a very real sense I would say they are a living example of the "depth pluralism" I have written about elsewhere.
Anyway, it is not that bad ideas or theories are not decimated. It's just usually done in good humor. The above picture, in fact, is an actual picture of TMK incinerating one of Mac's ideas to the "oohs and ahhs" to some of the 37 children.
So FM had started it off in the morning by grumbling about the S.F. Chronicle article. Mac wanted no part of it because he knew nothing at all about the concept (or so he thought). In almost "Larry David" form though FM just could not quite let it go. It came up here and there throughout the day.
At one point I looked over at Mac and said, "He's not gonna let it go."
"I know," he said, "I like that about him, but I'm not jumping in. Better JK or TDK. Besides I'm at the part in the Bond book where he murders Drax at Bridge. Talk about ID! Er, can you pass the brie?"
The day was filled with all the beauty of the place. I watched the way that Mac swam with his sister, her kids and his own daughter. It didn't seem accidental or random at all, nor the beauty of the brown trout and the crayfish below my outstretched feet as I sat on the quiet dock watching with two eyes which are miracles all on their own.
A poem started in my head, then I thought of Pascal and all the design he saw, but also the false overlays of human experience...the "diversions".
Was this a diversion? Mac's daughter wanted him to watch her jump from the platform. When she emerged her face was laughing and aglow. He laughed.
Diversion?
Not buying it.
Later they played Scrabble and I thought of Walker Percy's views on language and semiotics. A "triadic view" that makes Scrabble and other things possible (like this article).
As usual, DM won at Scrabble. Her ID is to never stay at the table. As others sit and play she busies herself joyfully with grandkids, small chores, whatever...anything to detach from the game in almost Zen-like fashion until she comes to her turn very fresh.
It's definite ID.
Mac's a professional writer with an amazing vocabulary. I asked him later. He says he has never even come close to beating her at Scrabble.
__________________________
After dinner!
15 comments:
cute!
welcome back! looking forward to the rest!
cool blog
Wow......
I just reached your page and have TONS to say..... but no time.
I will leave you with this one thought tho.
You stated that it might not be so bad to teach ID in the classrooms. You say that it might broaden our horizons and lead to further discussions.
While that may be true, would you still feel the same if that sort of idea was open to all kinds of beliefs.
If you had children in school, and someone wanted to start teaching the Muslim religion, would that also be okay?
Intelligent Design is a masked idea with the word "theory" in it to try and give it some validity.
We all know it all leads back to the same thing: God (creator)
To the many of us who don't believe in God, there is plenty harm that can be done in teaching something mythical.
I will come back and give you a bit more info regarding evolution, and the "eye" issue.
Awesome blog!
Jeff- Actually I was really hopeful that the sort of questions you raise would start to come up.
So thank you and we will very much look forward to all you have to say.
I do not have answers, but this is how we explore and learn. So I hope you will do more and also others will join in.
That being said, let me give you my own view but make sure to invite all involved to "throw in".
If I had children in school (I do, and have) I would not be comfortable with Christian, Muslim (they are actually the same Creation source) or Hindu..or a Scientologists view, etc...being presented in a science class.
Science is supposed to give us the best observations and guesses on life on earth (and beyond) through replication, experimentation and hypothesis with testing.
Myths attemped to inform less pragmatic, but no less important human questions..and questions for the planet as we seem to be fairly dominant.
Perhaps in a history class you could talk freely about the Mayan creation myth, and then look at others.
As Frederick Beauchner says a myth may be historical or not...but it really does not matter because it is always true."
So, I dunno.
Were Adam and Eve historical beings in time and space (redundancy is strange)? Does it really matter?
[I have written extensive on this site about PERCEPTION. It's in the archives and is relevant. But I'll leave it at this for focus sake].
Science is science and belief is belief. Often times belief far surpasses science and science catches up later. Einstein and others saw things way before they could prove them. It tends to workout in time.
I will disagree that ID necessarily leads back to a creator (God). I am not so naive that I do not see some using it that way, but that is why I bring up Gregory Bateson. Not religious at all, but pointing to incredible design and inter-relationship.
As hard as it is for Creationists to simply accept those aspects of Evolutionary Theory, so it seems with naked ID.
And that is what we need: Naked ID (this of course should not be confused with Freud's Naked id, though it certainly drives the species).
I keed, I keed.
Both "sides' use it for their agenda...but what about dropping "sides" and just exploring what is?
Let's be honest about the HUGE gaps in Evolutionary Theory while embracing the magnificent discoveries it has afforded us.
So I disagree that ID brings us irrevocably back to God. Bateson would disagree..maybe his daughter Catherine would not (can you imagine being the daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson...YIKES!).
I want to suggest a movie to you and others. Mindwalk. God is really not a part of it at all (though nice crtiques of religion).
Maybe we could set a time to watch it and then discuss.
My motive would be to demonstrate that we can talk about design and living systems and quantum mechanics etc...without bringing God into it.
I happen to see God in it...but it is not required in any way (just as in our discussions I feel no need to convince you but will simply enjoy exploring with you.)
Lastly, I do not want to hesitate to agree with you about those with a religious agendas.
It sucks.
Many times religious people try to use something true or good for their own controlling and manipulative ends.
We all suffer when they do.
The only answer, as I see it, is to shoot higher.
That was what I was thinking the last few days...trying to shoot the dialogue higher...above the rhetoric and bullshit. I thought Bateson a good vehicle.
Read him. I'll try and find some resources to post. I'm not sure I can find my book (which took me 3 years to find...ultimately in LA...this was long before Amazon).
Peace and thanks so much for contributing!
Lastly,
I do have to say that if in a non-dogmatic and religious context we can find evidence of ID, then it is bad science not to include and explore that.
ok, perhaps I'm an idiot (well, clearly I am), but why can't the world be both?
ID seems to just purport that there was some plan in place. Most people think of evolution as accidental, but to me it's always seemed terribly intelligent when it comes to the survival of Life itself (not the individual doing the living- but ID doesn't concern itself with that either - or did I miss something?). Anyway, I sometimes think all the religions should be taught, fair and square, equal time. Then folks could make an informed decision about it, which is what education is suppsoed to do for us in the first place.
Sex--keep reading...
I'm glad that there are people out there who believe otherwise, who are able to point out the holes in evolution, because we need that sort of interplay for the sake of objectivity.
But let me be a scientific twat for a moment. Evolution is true. LALALLALA it just is LALLALALA.
No really, evolution is a fact, its beautiful, and it makes too much sense to not be true. Its a theory, but so is the theory of gravity. We still don't understand gravity, as a matter of fact, we understand evolution better than we understand gravity. But we know it exists. Point being, sometimes its perfectly fine to posit the existance of something without being able to fill in the details, and from what we have observed so far, we know evolution is a fact. It's therefore both a fact and a theory.
Because a theory is just an interpretation of facts and data, and the evidence which suggests that varying species seemed to have adapted in their environment best explained by a theory which suggests they really did adapt in their environment. And the notion that these micro changes in their gene code may be realized as full blown macro shifts after time is an inevitable implication - just as I don't know how the hell we got to the rock music today when I listen to the Beatles, but we just did.
Evolution is a fact and it should be taught as a fact, that's just the way I see it. Positing ID just raises more questions than answer, it is superfluous. How did this Creator create, blah blah. ID isn't science because no theory or empirical data can ever be derived from it, so why should anyone teach it in the science classroom? If ID isn't science then it doesn't belong in the science classroom, that's another way to look at it.
My view is that there shouldn't be a controversy, because we already have the answer, and it should be taught, damnit!
Sorry, to clarify on what I said before, the theory being spoken of is actually natural selection. Evolution is the fact, and the theory to describe it is natural selection.
Good clarification Greg. Thanks for weighing in.
In later parts of this series it is posited that a direct connection to a Creater is not necessary to note, scientifically, the attributes of design and see innate, non-religious intelligence.
at least with the beatles to rock theory there are fossils along the way showing the various progressions from one species of rock music to the next . . .
Good point Tabs...the silence of the fossil record is near deafening...but just as deafening is lost of the rhetoric of some Creationists who simply do bad science.
Well when talking about evolution over the course of millions and millions of years, and given the violent history of the planet earth, ya kinda can't blame them for having a spotty collection of fossils. Bottom line is it's HARD.
The problem is the critics who hold their standards of verification too high because they have their own agendas.
Evolution is the fact and tracing its step is the puzzle, some only want to focus on the empty spots.
Every species is a missing "link"
I LOVE THAT PICTURE!!!! wish I could have been there, looks like a lot of fun! ;)
Post a Comment