(Here in GENERAL 'cuz it’s Thoughts I’ve Thunk in various threads. No formatting, links or images d/t technical snafus.)
Words have meanings.
This seems to go without saying. But as a word nerd and former Christian who’s “been on both sides now,” I see certain conflicts over terminology that repeatedly overshadow discussions of the concepts themselves.
Anyone can use any terminology they like in a debate, but when:
Our understanding of a term conflicts with the understanding of those who “own” that term, or
Our terminology is intended to obfuscate our motivations
… discussion will go off the rails even faster than it needs to.
(Fellow atheists, don’t you get frustrated when Christians say “Atheists hate God?” It’s like that.)
With that in mind, I’d like to throw out some clarifications on terminology in the discussion of religion and science… things I’ve often seen misused, misinterpreted, or manipulated.
This is NOT a glossary or official statement on anything. I’m just thinking out loud, typos and all.
━━━ • ✙ • ━━━
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION
When we (nonbelievers) START with the premise that “science is incompatible with religion” per se, we reinforce an unnecesary acrimony. In reality: a CERTAIN type of religion is in conflict with science (and the reverse is not necessarily true).
The “conflict” isn’t inherent or universal. Science does not conflict with the vast majority of religions in the world – not even with the majority of Christian denominations. (Nonbelievers often assume all Christians are Fundamentalists, but this is far from the case.)
Generally, the conflict is on the side of certain theists: a minority of Conservative Christians (and some Muslims) who require a literal reading of the Bible (or Qur’an). This group is both very vocal and very politically active. They are the noisy wheel that gets the grease.
The conflict doesn’t involve most Christians, who, like most Jews, interpret the Torah as metaphor. The whole discussion is totally irrelevant to adherents of Eastern religions.
━━━ • ✙ • ━━━
INTELLIGENT DESIGN & CREATIONISM
“Intelligent design” is a thing – a specific thing.
While the term isn’t copyrighted, nor a capitalized proper noun, the use of this phrase has been associated with one particular pseudoscientific theory in opposition to evolution for 30 years. When we use it, we should assume that MOST readers assume that’s what we mean.
Proponents of ID maintain that Darwin’s theory of evolution is disproved by both “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity,” which require an “intelligent designer.” They don’t specifically identify this designer as the God of Abraham, because if they did, the “theory” could not be taught in public schools. But ID was developed by a Conservative Christian think tank, and proponents are almost all Conservative Christians.
ID is a FORM of creationism, and often a Trojan Horse for creationism, but isn’t SYNONYMOUS with creationism. The distinction here is important. Creationism is a wide umbrella; some under it are Bible literalists who beliece in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Therefore, many creationists oppose ID, and most ID proponents reject creationism. ID proponents adhere to “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity,” not any particular interpretation of Genesis.
For the same reason, referring to any theology that allows for a “creator” as “intelligent design” is TECHNICALLY correct, but confusing and misleading due to 30 years of general use of “ID.” Theistic Evolution is theoretically intelligent design, but isn’t “intelligent design.” Beliefs that incorporate elements of Buddhism and theoretical physics aren’t “intelligent design” either. And, MOST Christians who accept evolution are NOT proponents of “intelligent design.”
To be clear: most Christians believe the God of Abraham somehow USED natural selection to create forms of life. These Christians (among them, most Roman Catholics – the days of Galileo are long gone – and Eastern Orthodox, as well as a large share of Protestants) simply see science as answering one set of questions, and religion another set of questions. They DON’T require “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity” for their beliefs to make sense.
━━━ • ✙ • ━━━
MOTIVATIONS OF SCIENTISTS & RELIGIOUS FOLKS
It’s important to realize that as movements, “intelligent design” and “creationism”’ exist ONLY in opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution and other 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century scientific discoveries that threatened certain interpretations of the Bible.
In this case, I do go against their own claims about themselves… because it’s clear from the timetable of historical events that ID came out of Christian Fundamentalism, and Christian Fundamentalism was a reaction to scientific discoveries of the 1800s.
My namesake, William Jennings Bryan, was one of the giant Christian forces against the teaching of evolution – but at that time (late 1800s/early 1900s), politically Progressive Christians’ opposition to evolution included fears that it would lead to “Social Darwinism,” even eugenics. Today, it’s the Conservatives who seem to like Social Darwinism.
This is a reminder that even terms like liberal, conservative, Progressive, Republican, Democrat and Populist have changed, morphed and even switched places over the past 150 years.
So creationists and ID proponents ARE anti-science, at least those disciplines that are problematic for them (biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, etc.)
There is a huge overlap between these folks and climate science deniers, and these feelings come from the same place – a literal or quasi-literal interpretation of the Bible, in this case the Book of Revelation.
The reason we (in America, in the current era) are so conscious of a war between science and religion has much to do with Christian Fundamentalist lawsuits against school districts, such as those involving my buddy Bryan and in Dover. This is largely an American phenomenon.
By the same token, scientists aren’t motivated by a wish to “destroy religion.” In fact, scientists pretty explicitly say they CAN’T “prove God doesn’t exist.” Scientists seek out truth where it takes them. Insomuch as a scientific theory may seem to “disprove religion,” the problem is with specific theists who hold a specific position (such as the age of the earth.)
The idea that there is a giant conspiracy amongst scientists to ignore or cover up proof that God exists is just goofy. Frankly, if a scientist were actually to “prove” the existence of such a being, he/she would go down as the top scientist of all time.
But “religion” is not a monolith with “a definition” of who, or what, God is. There are almost as many concepts of “God” or “gods” as there are people. How science could “prove” the existence of a thing that cannot even be defined is beyond me.
>>>>>>>>
Anyhoo… like I said, I’m just throwing this out FWIW.