Originally Posted by Textcritic
Very nice. Thank you.
I think that this is one of several problems. A principle issue that prevents understanding among ID proponents is a more global philosophical problem that impacts a variety of areas, and that is the matter of hermeneutics. More specifically, people generally presume that their own interpretation of the world (this includes science, language, society, etc.) is somehow universally fixed and not prone to any sort of change. When in actual fact, change across the spectrum in practically every discipline is both natural and prevalent. In my discussions with creationists and IDers it is my impression that they largely suffer from a marriage to arguments from incredulity, by which they cannot possibly imagine that things are contrary to how they appear, or to how how we make "common sense" of them.
An example of how this works out may be illustrated from the interesting history of sexuality in the Western world: our modern attitudes towards gender and sex have had a huge impact on our perception of human relationships, social cues, children, and even matters of morality and law. There was a time when sex was perceived almost exclusively as a function for either reproduction or the assertion of power. Among ancient Mesopotamian / Assyrian cultures from which we are descended, it was completely divorced from any expression of emotion or what we would consider affection (certainly, affection was often a common response within sexual relationships, but this was entirely secondary): for this reason, social cues were created to confine sex to a (usually polygamous) marriage relationship, and laws were defined along these lines to eliminate gratuitous sexual activity, or "non-productive" (read: "homosexual") sexuality. Through the passage of time, and as human cultural interaction has evolved, the relationship between men and women has adapted along the same lines, and to include significant changes to our attitudes with regards to sexuality: No longer is it merely a reproductive activity. In fact, in the modern world, reproduction seems to actually have become much more of a consequence as opposed to the purpose for sex. Social cues and ideas with regards to courtship, marriage, and family have changed significantly as a result, to the point at which now their primary purposes have much more to do with affection and devotion in their own rights, and much less to do with tribal solidarity. This in turn has caused a contemporary debate with regards to the very definition of marriage, and whether or not it should be restricted along gender lines.
All that said, the point in this is to illustrate how much our interpretation of just one part of the world can so dramatically affect our understanding of the way things are. Antiquated ideas about sex informed modern conceptions, and some of these still survive in one form or another, but the purpose of many of these do not accord with how sex functions in our society today.
How does this relate to IDers? Basically, the rejection of evolution is informed by a sense of incredulity that is in turn caused by a poor understanding of how our understanding of the world has so dramatically changed. I think that it is probably fair to argue that the vast majority of IDers oppose evolution in principle, and on the basis of a flawed or antiquated interpretation of how the world works. They maintain a commitment to an ideal that is challenged by the implications of evolution, and are thus forced to reject evolution as a result. By way of analogy: For those for whom homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, it is so axiomatically. However, the circumstances upon which this axiom were founded (that it was fundamental to protect the ancient idea of "family" and the instrument of reproduction) have changed so dramatically, that the axiom itself has become irrelevant. This is much less a matter of science than it is of philosophy. If we could convince IDers—and people in general—of their own susceptibility to hermeneutical shifts, would it become a more viable task to convince them of the soundness of evolution?
... or am I rambling?....
|