Comment Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (Score 1) 1574
While the same metaphorical names can be used to signify the god of science and religion, the theist speaking in the context of religion and the scientist speaking in the context of science are using symbols that happen to have the same name but are pointing at very different ideas. The god of the theist has very definite properties that lie completely outside the domain of scientific discourse and method. The god of the scientist is an idea whose properties are still mostly hidden from us but are being gradually defined by the scientific method. So these two ideas inhabit domains that are completely disjoint.
You mentioned that these ideas are stupid things to fight about. Most scientists will agree with you, but a large percentage of theists will not. As science (evolutionary theory in this case) advances, it slowly rolls away the cloud of mystery surrounding facts and events in the physical world and offers logical and physically testable explanations for these facts and events, and the supernatural explanation that formerly appeared so solid always does poorly (in the marketplace of ideas) when compared to the scientific explanation.
Theism is a foundational idea, on which many theists have constructed their entire world view, and these theists derive meaning and comfort from these ideas, which makes life bearable. In a very real sense, as the domain of scientific knowledge expands, the domain of the supernatural contracts and theists can feel this in their gut, and react against it. So when these theists perceive that the foundation of their world view is under attack on all sides by the seemingly inexorable and atheistic progress of science, they of course search for any means to halt its progress and regain some lost ground and metaphysical breathing room for their own domain.
In the case of evolutionary theory, which threatens the very foundation of their creation story and hence strikes at the root of their belief, they try to exclude evolution from the marketplace of ideas. In this country, that effort has been, so far, futile. So in desperation the theists try to present an alternative "theory" which (apparently) inhabits (and appears to reconcile) the domains of science and monotheism. If they are successful in introducing this alternate "theory", then they can relax a little and rest assured that their children and future generations can at least learn a "theory" that will allow them to comfortably follow the theistic path.
Finally, I can't let this go unsaid. When the theists are unsuccessful, some of them react like any desperate animal and strike out physically against their tormentors. That's why scientists generally do not oppress or kill theists for their beliefs or statements, but history is full of theists oppressing and killing those whose ideas threaten their belief system.
You mentioned that these ideas are stupid things to fight about. Most scientists will agree with you, but a large percentage of theists will not. As science (evolutionary theory in this case) advances, it slowly rolls away the cloud of mystery surrounding facts and events in the physical world and offers logical and physically testable explanations for these facts and events, and the supernatural explanation that formerly appeared so solid always does poorly (in the marketplace of ideas) when compared to the scientific explanation.
Theism is a foundational idea, on which many theists have constructed their entire world view, and these theists derive meaning and comfort from these ideas, which makes life bearable. In a very real sense, as the domain of scientific knowledge expands, the domain of the supernatural contracts and theists can feel this in their gut, and react against it. So when these theists perceive that the foundation of their world view is under attack on all sides by the seemingly inexorable and atheistic progress of science, they of course search for any means to halt its progress and regain some lost ground and metaphysical breathing room for their own domain.
In the case of evolutionary theory, which threatens the very foundation of their creation story and hence strikes at the root of their belief, they try to exclude evolution from the marketplace of ideas. In this country, that effort has been, so far, futile. So in desperation the theists try to present an alternative "theory" which (apparently) inhabits (and appears to reconcile) the domains of science and monotheism. If they are successful in introducing this alternate "theory", then they can relax a little and rest assured that their children and future generations can at least learn a "theory" that will allow them to comfortably follow the theistic path.
Finally, I can't let this go unsaid. When the theists are unsuccessful, some of them react like any desperate animal and strike out physically against their tormentors. That's why scientists generally do not oppress or kill theists for their beliefs or statements, but history is full of theists oppressing and killing those whose ideas threaten their belief system.
