The War On Bullshit

Ben Stein, of Ferris Bueller fame, has finally done something to make me forget how much I enjoyed his droning hilarity in that film. He has brought so-called intelligent design to the forefront of public conversation once more, reviving one of the most widely-accepted hoaxes in the history of mankind.

This latest bit of nonsense is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and features Stein interviewing a host of supposed academics and scientists, disgruntled because they are ostracized from academics because of their belief in a concept called ‘intelligent design,’ which, despite its name, is a theory featuring very little intelligence. Theatres showing the film are scarce (thankfully), so I have yet to see the documentary, but that’s not my concern for this week. My concern is intelligent design, and this notion that Stein and his fans have that this is somehow a valid theory worthy of merit or even consideration, when the truth is, the so-called academics who believe in it should be ostracized and laughed at. Let’s look at this ‘theory’ a little closer.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Intelligent design is the belief that the development of life on Earth was guided by some intelligent being, rather than being governed by the random processes of inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. It is based strongly in a belief that god, or some incarnation of it, created the universe and has guided the development of mankind and, indeed, all species of animal on Earth. This is in opposition with the currently accepted theory of species development: neo-Darwinian evolution.

I’m going to go ahead and dumb this down, so you biologists out there, just keep quiet as I put things in layman’s terms. To the neo-Darwinian scientists, things happen something like this: cells randomly mutate all the time. Sometimes those mutations end up favorable to the life-form (i.e. beans gaining a resistance to a certain bug), and thus that life-form is able to reproduce more offspring and pass on that trait. In the same way, organisms which develop unfavorable mutations die out before they can reproduce, thus killing those bad genes off.

Theory vs. Bullshit
Neo-Darwinian evolution is what one calls a scientific ‘theory.’ Now, in common lingo, a theory can be just about any conjecture or opinion. In science, however, a theory is a testable prediction of natural phenomenon based on observable facts.

Neo-Darwinian evolution, for instance, is a theory to predict how new life-forms develop from old ones, based on facts from the fossil record and much of the work done in genetics and geological research. It is testable by looking at the fossils of connected species, and in fact, some of the more extraordinary research being done actually shows the evolution of quick-growing bacteria in action.

Here’s where we get to the big pile of smelly bullshit: intelligent design. Proponents of this theory say there’s nothing to explain where life began, and they argue that there are too many coincidences and improbabilities for evolution to occur randomly. While it is true that we have little evidence supporting any theories of how life began, deifying our own ignorance and calling it ‘god’ is not a scientific solution.

Intelligent design proponents try to replace all that is unknown with some vague deity. This does not create a valid scientific theory. This is superstition masked as science; theology pretending to be biology. God cannot be tested, seen, heard, or even smelled. To the scientist, it does not exist, as there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence.

Expelled for no Intelligence
Stein’s documentary makes the argument that academics who subscribe to intelligent design have been unfairly treated: ridiculed, not taken seriously, and even fired. I argue that they were treated fairly; they were laughed at as academics for believing in superstition.

The biologist who argues, despite all evidence to the contrary, that leprechauns are real would be laughed at. He would be ridiculed out of any legitimate conference. Why is intelligent design somehow worthy of merit, despite its basis in myth and superstition? If belief in intelligent design is accepted as science, we may as well begin teaching classes on dragons, proposing theories about the evolution of unicorns, and offering majors in Chupacabra Studies.

So, for those of you fooled by Stein’s documentary, just keep in mind what a theory is in science. Don’t accept this unfalsifiable nonsense as fact, for there is no intelligence in intelligent design. See it for what it is: superstition masquerading as biology.

I was recently told by a Christian that I, being an atheist, am intrinsically immoral, having nothing on which to base my morality. I think with the Pope’s recent visit to our fair shores, this is a great statement for me to sink my teeth into. For all you Christians who think atheists lack a moral compass, I’ve got the real good news: belief in an imaginary father-figure is not necessary to define your morals, and, in fact, religious moral authority often prevents tolerance of other systems of morality.

This theory hinges on a few concepts I’ll discuss: moral relativism, the subjective nature of human life, and the flawed philosophy of Plato.

The Problem with Plato
Let’s start with the groundwork. For those of you unfamiliar with Platonic idealism, here’s the real short version: Plato believed that there was an objective reality out there, and truth is an accurate representation of this objective reality. Now, this sounds good – it’s easy to digest, and wraps everything up in a happy black and white picture. If reality is objective, then good is good, bad is bad, and ugly is ugly.

There are, however, some serious problems with Plato. Richard Rorty, a postmodern philosopher, argues in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity that big-T Truth is a problem because man interprets everything through language. Don’t buy it? How are your thoughts organized? BINGO! Language. Language is seen by Rorty as nothing but a series of metaphors; the word tree is not, in fact, a tree, but merely a verbal image representing a tree. He thus comes to the conclusion that language must be subjective, since we all have slightly differing interpretations of these metaphors. You may see an oak tree, while I envision a pine tree, for instance. Rorty and other postmodernists believe, rather than in Truth, in truths. To the postmodern philosophers, there is no objective reality – or, rather, mankind can never find objective reality because we are limited by the subjectivity of the language with which we interpret the world. This leads to some interesting concepts regarding morality…

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is a concept espoused by existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed a human being’s morals are subjective and based on cultural and societal norms rather than some objective morality given to us by God. This hinges on the above-expressed idea that reality itself is subjective, of course. Moral relativists often argue that someone’s morality is only applicable within their own culture, and can’t be applied to other, conflicting cultures. There are some problems with this theory as well; moral relativism implies that we can each create our own morals, and since we each create our own moral code, no one is immoral. I tend to subscribe to a more practical view: morals are socially constructed. Individual cultures come to a consensus of what is considered immoral.

Conclusion
“So what the heck is your point, Riley?” you might be asking. My point is, atheists are perfectly able to be moral, righteous individuals. If morals are relative to the culture, my morality is based on the same Western ideals as the morality of any Christian. The idea that an atheist cannot be moral is based on a concept I just don’t buy into: that we have some Truth handed down to us by a nonexistent God.

Kavan pointed out in an earlier article that the Ten Commandments are missing some very important rules; for instance, rape is wrong, despite not being in the Ten Commandments. I think we can all agree that a rapist is not a moral individual; where does this come from, if the Bible does not command it as part of your moral foundation? It’s because rape is damaging to society, and thus goes against our collective, cultural moral foundation.

Now here’s the leap: atheism and moral relativism actually breed more tolerance than mainstream, Christian ideology. Christians’ belief that morals and Truth are handed down by God (not any god, but their God), has led many (not all) Christians to believe those of other belief systems are wrong, going to hell, and generally bad and immoral people. Because I do not follow the Word of God, I must be an immoral person. Worse than individual persecution, religious morality breeds systemic intolerance.

Ex.:The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13, “And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” There are vast armies of Christians who argue that this is the way we actually ought to treat homosexuality. Because their religion is a system of rules given to them by a divine, infallible Creator, His words make it okay to persecute and even put to death those who go against His divine morality.

Moral relativism and a belief that the world itself is subjective allows one to gain a better appreciation for why other cultures do the things they do, and allows for a more tolerant view of them. That being said, this problem is not unique to Christianity – this kind of superiority complex is pervasive in almost all organized religions. Each one thinks they have the Ultimate Truth, and the others are all wrong.

Not to sound too much like a Beatles song, but imagine if people worldwide accepted the notion that morality is a societal invention. Since it is no longer something given to us by some infallible source, and is, in fact, a creation of mankind, the other religions of the world are no longer immoral and wrong. They’ve just got a different view of the truth. After all, they’re all shooting for the same target, right? “Do unto others…”

In a previous post, I identified a dialectic reasoning pattern I call the “new stupid” pattern. Here is another example.

Old stupid argument: violent video games make children more dangerous and lead to fighting, gang violence, school shootings, etc.

New stupid argument: its absurd that atomizing monsters with the BFG and sniping aliens would translate too are more violent temperament. This is just fear mongering by out of touch senior citizens.

What’s actually going on: in The Republic, Plato emphasized the importance of the stories told children and how people’s minds are affected by the stories to which they are exposed. Our culture glorifies violence. The ubiquitous exaltation of violence is prominent in video games, board games, movies, television, advertisements, news, the wars being fought, medals given to soldiers, classic and contemporary literature, and religious texts.

Are violent video games contributing to violence in society? Certainly, but no more so than any other medium.

Should society limit children’s access to violent games? Perhaps, but only if we’re willing to limit access to other violent media, including the Bible.