Thoughts in a Haystack

Not that it's a surprise or anything, but here is the Undiscovery Institute openly admitting that the Intelligent Design Movement's real motive is to roll back the Enlightenment and modern science.

Why is there a debate over intelligent design and Darwinism? Why are people more passionate about how some scientific theories are taught and not others? And perhaps, an even broader question, are these debates new or is it the same debate dressed in different trappings? Nancy Pearcey's latest book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning, takes a bird's-eye-view of the history of ideas revealing a tapestry of thought dating back to the Enlightenment that provides impeccable insight into why we think the way we do today.

Pearcey, you see, gives "worldviews and cultural commentary" for "both the culture-at-large and ... the Christian sub-culture" by providing "a history of ideas that have lead to the secular worldviews dominating the marketplace of ideas today." And what does that "history" reveal"

Honing in on the Enlightenment line of history, we see a very clear picture of how science and the study of nature was at one time a deeply spiritual and meaningful endeavor, but eventually became a meaningless, exercise of manipulation and control. For example, technological advancement was seen as a way to alleviate people, who had inherent value and dignity, from tasks that were monotonous or dangerous. This view of technology was influenced by a Christian worldview, which assumed man was made in the image of God. The machine did the menial tasks that were not worthy for man to do. It was recognition of man's dignity; that is, until the machine usurped man's dignity.

And what turned science away from the "Christian worldview"? Why, "Empiricism became the dominant philosophy of the day." How did the nasty Empiricists do that?

While it is true that some knowledge can be gained from the senses, empiricism claimed that knowledge can only be gained through the senses. Therefore what we see, feel, taste, and touch is real; everything else is meaningless. In their mind, there was no spiritual realm, no mind, and nothing of meaning beyond the physical world.

Now, anyone who reads this blog knows I have a certain sympathy for the view that science is not the be-all and end-all of human "knowledge" ... that at least some out of the categories of "philosophy, theology, literature, or art" deliver things that we do and should "know." But, when it comes to the "physical world," science is our best, if not only, guide. Not so the DI:

The high regard for the scientific method as a source of reliable knowledge was born in the empiricist thinking.

So, what is really the DI's "enemy" is that "high regard for the scientific method." Their program is not itself scientific. They are out to destroy that "high regard" ... and, with it, science and science education ... because:

These debates go beyond weighing evidences on a scale and seeing which side is the heaviest. Most people agree on what they see, but they disagree on what is the correct interpretation, which is a matter of philosophical perspective.

Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, right ... from the DI's fellow creationists.
.