Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

| 51 Comments

Intelligent design vs. gay marriage by Fred Hutchison, a RenewAmerica analyst.

It get’s only worse but I found the following quote of particular interest

Intelligent design

The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, marriage must also be designed. Homosexuality is contrary to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must make in the debate about gay marriage.

If we are designed, there must be a Great Designer behind the design. The argument that man has a designed nature is also an argument for a Creator. The argument that man has no innate nature is also an argument against a Creator. At the root of the culture war is a conflict between theism and atheism

If one had any doubt as to the nature of the Intelligent Designer

The mission of conservatives at this point in history is to develop a life-style, philosophy, and worldview of intelligent design. Every issue in the culture war hinges upon the question of whether man has an innate nature and whether that nature has a design from the Creator.

Individual lives and families committed to their true nature and destiny is the foundation for the renewal of the community, the culture, and the nation. Communities of design can win the culture war, with God’s help, and steer America towards her glorious destiny as planned in the counsels of eternity.

There you have it… I do shudder at the logical fallacies of this article but it may help one understand how some people ‘think’ and I reluctantly use this word.

I also wonder about ‘innate nature’ and it not being explainable by natural processes.

We have an innate nature precisely because our nature is designed by a supreme being. If we are not the product of design, we cannot have an innate nature.

But what if we are the product of design but our (immediate) designer are purely natural processes such as evolutionary processes? Claiming that we have an innate nature because we are designed by a supreme being is begging the question.

People have an innate nature. Evolutionary psychology seeks to discover that nature, and to work out why it is that way. We have an innate nature, because we have inherited genes from our most successful ancestors. The instincts and emotions which people of the past had, affected their success in surviving and breeding. We are the descendants of the people who both survived and bred.

EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY

51 Comments

I’m afraid Mr. Hutchinson’s innate nature is all too evident.

And what of the fact that the best available evidence suggests homosexuality is innate?

“Homosexuality is contrary to that design” Meh -who needs evidence when you’ve got an agenda?

How does one get elected Senator in the Councils of Eternity? Sounds like a cool job to me.

Communities of design can win the culture war, with God’s help, and steer America towards her glorious destiny as planned in the counsels of eternity.

What plan? Did we miss a meeting?

Seriously … that’s just chilling.

“If we are designed, there must be a Great Designer behind the design.”

And who designed him?

Why do these dipsticks never manage to fire enough synapses to think their position through to this level? I mean, duh! Can you say, “Blind unthinking obedience to superstitious dogma?”

That there is so much stupidity and irrationalism left on earth in the year 2005 is a continuing source of dispair.

Didn’t Einstein say something about the difference between human intellect and human stupidity was that there were no limits to human stupidity?

Need we any more proof of that conjecture?

Hutchinson, like many other creationists, whether ID or other varieties, seems to have missed out on most of the intellectual advances of the 20th century (Godel, genetics, the Modern Synthesis, etc.) This does not give one much hope that his acumen will be any better regarding the 21st.

You didn’t mention that Renew America is Alan Keyes’ web site. The same man who evicted his own daughter from his home (and cancelled any funding for her college classes) when she told him she was a lesbian. That she hooked up with a self-professed anarchist probably didn’t help.

Frankly, I’m a little concerned that PT is giving fringe sites like Renew America too much publicity by commenting on their tripe. Admittedly it’s entertaining (though not much harder than shooting fish in a barrel), but this nonsense would have likely gone unnoticed without PT’s commentary. They’ve probably have more hits on their site tonight than in the last month.

PT doesn’t critique every article Ken Ham or ICR churns out–why give fringe political folks like Alan Keyes the air of publicity they don’t deserve? It’s not like he, his staff, or his readers are likely to be swayed by anything we say here.

I wonder about statements like “If man was designed, then marriage must also be designed.” Does one really follow from the other? I’d be interested to see which particular syllogism Mr. Hutchison is using. The one that says, if a=b, and b=c, then a=x?

But somehow “If man was designed, homosexuality must also be designed” doesn’t follow, using exactly the same logic? Am I missing something here?

As usual, god gets the credit for all the “good” stuff, while not taking the blame for all the “bad” stuff. Although I think in the cases of marriage and homosexuality, the estimable Mr. Hutchison might have the categories reversed. At least if the married couples I know are any indication…

What is (now only potentially) frightening to me is that this sort of “leader” would, given power, willingly (in many case, gleefully)send those who disagreed with him and his “Counsel” as well as those who could be accused of whatever habits he doesn’t like to labor/death camps. After all, from his point of view “what choice would he have” in all-too-many cases?

That he is a base coward and would never have the nerve to lay the ground work needed for this dystopia comforts me greatly, but should these “culture war” hawks ever find their stormtroopers, things would get very unpleasant, and not just for our side.

I understand that shit like this is part of a natural process, and unavoidable; yet, how full ‘mer’ka’s lower instestine is at this period of its history! Oh! For the high-colonic of Reason to flush it out!

Wow, I thought you dug up some article from some right wing extremist fringe group. hmmmmm, well I guess I thought correctly. I guess I didn’t realize that Alan Keyes was a part of this group.

The mental gymnastics these guys go through is hard to follow and it really makes no sense. But hey, I guess I’m being too skeptical of what they’re saying and skepticism is evil!!

Are we sure this isn’t Fred Phelps rather than Fred Hutchison?

Are we sure this isn’t Fred Phelps rather than Fred Hutchison?

Wow, so we as humans and with straight people are “designed”, but suddenly gay people aren’t because marriage is deisgned, too? Does it not neccessarily follow that gay people are also deisgned? Marriage, in fact, was designed by MEN, not some benevolent or supernatural creator/creative force/designer, and even if you are a literal biblicist (in which case the ID proposal of this farce is transparent) there’s nothing in there that argues that marriage is in anyway moral, as marriage laws in the Bible are intrinsically fiscal. Bald stupidity.…

Why is it that groups with “Renew” in their name are often hell-bent on bringing us back to the Dark Ages?

The New, Improved Dark Ages! I can’t wait…

Wow, after reading that “analysis” by Mr. Hutchison I fell like showering with a brill-o pad. Ick.

But, I would like to point out that not all Conservatives think this way. Don’t make the mistake of taking Mr. Hutchison’s words at face value on that point as well.

[And no, I’m not a conservative, but I know several who are and are also staunch supporters of evolutionary theory.]

The incomparable Sadly, No! has been mocking Renew America’s insane rantings masterfully for some time. I suggest you pay Brad R and Gavin a visit.

El Brujo Wrote:

Why is it that groups with “Renew” in their name are often hell-bent on bringing us back to the Dark Ages?

Probably for the same reason that organisations with “People’s” in their name are usually totalitarian, and publications with “Truth” in their name are usually propagandist

They should already know that marriage isn’t designed - from the “testimony” of the very first section of their favourite book. No big wedding or even a little wedding. Just a command to do a lot of multiplying. So the mathematicians and computer people must be the most virtuous. ;-)

steve Wrote:

That guy’s bio is amusing.

Yeah. But not as amusing as his photo in which he sports a comb-over and an oddly-placed rose.

Let’s see, weird looking guy with a public focus on gay stuff that wears a pink rose and “seeks to network with Christian intellectuals” – I’ll put money down that this guy is a closet case in best tradition of Spokane’s Jim West, New Jersey’s James McGreevey, and the White House’s Jeff Gannon.

These people don’t hate gays because they’re Christians – they hate gays because they hate themselves.

P.Z. Myers has dealt with this “philosopher” before on pharyngula.:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/two_fools/

where he looked at this equally fatuous piece of nonsense:

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses[…]utchison.htm

Apparently Mr. Hutchison has an innate problem with understanding reality.

Hutchinson, like many other creationists, whether ID or other varieties, seems to have missed out on most of the intellectual advances of the 20th century.

This could be misinterpreted to imply awareness of intellectual advances of the 18th and 19th centuries. These are not people who approve of the enlightenment.

Mike Walker Wrote:

Frankly, I’m a little concerned that PT is giving fringe sites like Renew America too much publicity by commenting on their tripe. Admittedly it’s entertaining (though not much harder than shooting fish in a barrel), but this nonsense would have likely gone unnoticed without PT’s commentary.

But there are many such groups with their Web sites and other communications–Focus on the Family, The Chalcedon Institute, Concerned Women for America, D. James Kennedy, &c. One thing they have in common is that they all vigorously condemn evolution as the source of many of society’s ills. They’re also politically active, both nationally and at the school-board level.

The Hutchinson article is a superb example of the thinking processes which typify religious fundamentalism (i.e rationalizing.)

From my perspective, the most chilling aspect of the essay is his condemnation of any connection between skepticism and reason. The willingness to construct a worldview based upon whatever set of axioms that your faith allows you to construct is the worldview that leads to statements like:

“Those who are subject to magical thinking have lost touch with the reality. Existence does not exist merely because it feels real to me. Rather, existence exists because everything has an intelligent design and therefore has an innate nature. If all that existed was our feelings and surface appearances, we would be free to construe what exists according to our whims.

When a director on a movie set looks at the false front of a building, he can decide what kind of building he wants it to be and make it so by hanging a different sign on it. However, if one thinks he can look at a real building and claim he can decide for himself what kind of building it is without reference to its design, he is either a liar, a mad man, or a liberal who has been seduced by magical thinking.

Unfortunately, liberals often think this way. In my debates with my liberal friends, I often have to tell them “saying so does not make it so.” Then they repeat the same thing with more emphasis as though rhetorical vehemence can force something into existence.”

I could behind him for the statement that “[t]hose who are subject to magical thinking have lost touch with the reality.” But I find it both amusing and frightening that he immediately follows the statement with his own magical thinking, asserting that “existence exists because everything has an intelligent design and therefore has an innate nature.” As a believer in objective reality like most members of the scientific community I find it frightening that Mr. Hutchinson believes that the solution to reality is asserting that objects exist because a magical being wills them to exist. The difference between a true rationalist and a faux rationalist a la Mr. Hutchinson is that a true rationalist accepts the world as it is without attempting to fit the square peg of reality into the round hole of one’s conception of God.

There is of course an obvious conflict with morality. But examples of how one should not look to the way the world is for examples of exemplary moral have been presented since the time of Darwin and before (my personal favorite is parasitic wasps). Mr. Hutchinson and his ilk simply haven’t been listening.

Actually, this is called “rationalism” in the medieval sense. Rationalism is the medieval epistemological school of thought. It is reason without reference to reality, and derives from the metaphysics of Plato. “If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s made of wood, and therefore…”

The false philosophical dichotomy put forward by conservatives is this: medieval rationalism vs. nihilism. Either you construct rational castles in the air (medieval rationalism) and attempt to ground them through tradition and assertion, or you are a nihilist who believes in nothing. Religious fundamentalism or chaos.

The enlightenment ushered in what we today call reason, which is the application of logic and rational thought in conjunction with systematic empirical investigation at every step. This is the third option that neither the conservatives nor the various other twinks and nihilists want you to know about.

Unfortunately, liberals often think this way. In my debates with my liberal friends, I often have to tell them “saying so does not make it so.” Then they repeat the same thing with more emphasis as though rhetorical vehemence can force something into existence.”

I find it just about impossible to believe that this guy has ‘liberal friends’.

(Sounds like one of those ‘some of my best friends are Negroes’-type comments.)

I just thank the Lord that you guys are on the case. Please keep up the good work. I come here for a recharge whenever religious deconstructionism makes my head asplode. - Jim

So the actions of an external designer are clear because humans have an innate nature. I wonder if he knows what “innate” means.

Since homosexuality exists in the animal world and monogamy is rather rare, does he think animals weren’t intelligently designed by God? Just humans? Someone had better tell Michael Behe that the lack of marriage in the bacterial world means that the bacterial flagellum can’t be down to God.

I wonder what the Discovery Institute people think of this essay? it isn’t saying anything very much that the Wedge Document hasn’t already said.

Adam, I agree that conservatives are guilty of advancing a false dichotomy, and I think it is even worse than you suggest, because I would assert that some associated with the neo-con movement (Wolfowitz and some of the other PNAC folks stand out in my mind) are engaged in a cynical attempt to use the Christian Right to achieve their ends. I suspect many in this group are atheist or minimally religious, but see traditional religion and the “culture wars” as a force to contain and distract opposition.

I’m not advancing this as conspiracy theory, simply a “conspiracy-lite” that grows naturally from Strauss’ influence on the neo-cons. It is remarkable to me to consider the degree to which the PNAC documents resemble the post-9/11 history of the the world, at least in terms of US activities. So it is not as if the neo-cons were some sort of “illuminati” trying to manipulate world events, instead they told us exactly what they hoped to do and then took advantage of 9/11 to move forward. Since the Christian Right was a strong supporter of their ultimate patron (W) I think that the extent to which neo-cons have added fuel to the fire of the culture war is simply a reflection of their “throwing the religious right a bone” and using these groups to contain and work against the reminants of the counter-culture.

Although Hutchinson clearly has a good grasp of the history of philosophy, his blinders have (in my opinion) not allowed him to see and understand the revolutionary changes in philosophy since the time of the Vienna circle. As I see it, since we are now faced with the reality that any formal axiomatic system will have true propositions that cannot be proven we are faced with the reality that we may not be able to provide proof for certain ethical propositions. Thus, we are faced with the reality that we may have to take the position that certain ethical standards have to be advanced as axioms. I am comfortable with the notion that some of my beliefs ultimately correspond to axioms and have no support beyond that. Mr. Hutchinson and his ilk have to place their axioms on a “solid ground” of faith - claiming that they are supported by God.

It is a little scary to live in a world where one has ultimately to state that certain ethical standards (e.g., “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) are - at their core - simply things we must accept. But it is reality. Obviously, there is also a basis for certain forms of ethical behavior in evolutionary psychology, but using evolutionary psychology to support ethics is ultimately to commit the naturalistic fallacy. But I also see something positive in this - when we examine our assumptions we may find the rest on nothing other than our beliefs, but that may be enough. Simply inventing a magical being to support of beliefs doesn’t add any more credibility.

Following one’s true design leads to fulfillment. Opposing one’s design leads to futility.

Someone should ask Mr. Hutchison to explain the “innate design” of an intersexual person. What sort of fulfillment could they expect in his world?

I found this to be a rather juxtaposed statement:

We must defend freedom, in spite of the fact that some men will abuse it, because freedom allows the wise to discover their true gifts and follow their true destiny.

Uhhh… then why not allow gays the freedom to… oh nevermind.

One of the many problems with the argument is the jump to “homosexuality is contrary to that design”. Let’s for instance assume that homosexuality is part of the innate nature of man, either one argues then that the innate nature was not designed but rather ‘evolved’ or one accepts that the designer considered homosexuality a necessary part of the innate nature of man.

I am still amazed at the lack of much of any logic applied in the article… Does it have any redeeming qualities or is poor design part of of the innate quality of this article?

Let’s see. I think just maybe this line of reasoning is circular:

Creationist: “ID is real.” Scientist: “Why?” Creationist: “Because some things are obviously designed.” Scientist: “Like what?” Creationist: “Things that God approves of.” Scientist: “Why are things that God approved of designed?” Creationist: “Because He designed them.” Scientist: “How do you know He designed them?” Creationist: “Because God wouldn’t design anything He didn’t approve of.”

And so on, and so on.

Presumably, gay penguins didn’t exist until after ‘the Fall’.

But there are many such groups with their Web sites and other communications—Focus on the Family, The Chalcedon Institute, Concerned Women for America, D. James Kennedy, etc. One thing they have in common is that they all vigorously condemn evolution as the source of many of society’s ills. They’re also politically active, both nationally and at the school-board level.

I would agree that at least three of these organizations are worth opposing vigorously (I don’t know the Chalcedon Institute) but they are head-and-shoulders more influential than this little crackpot organization Alan Keyes has set up. Keyes has no constituency worth speaking of, even among the right wing of the Republican party, the others have increasing influence and sway over politics at all levels. (And I don’t see PT wasting time attacking any of Kennedy’s idiotic YEC ideas either.)

My concern is that articles like this simply generates the publicity the authors crave–remember the Timothy Birdnow nonsense in the “American Thinker”. That was another poorly written anti-evolution screed that nobody read until PT came along. Now he’s parading about like a martyr, sacrificed for the “noble cause of ID”. Hey, it’s a free country, and PT contributers can do what they like, I just wish they wouldn’t fan the flames in places where nobody is–*was*–looking. There are enough creationist infernos in need of extinguishing in this country already!

I don’t agree that Huchison has a “good grasp of the history of philosophy.” He has clearly dabbled in it a bit, and can drop some names, as one would at a cocktail party. But really understanding the subject (which is one I taught once upon a time) would make one a much better thinker that this guy is.

As commenters have noted, this essay is full of fallacies; in fact, it is neat summary of a large portion of the fallacies committed by anti-evolution reactionaries. As such, it could be used in a logic course, but I wouldn’t teach it in a biology course. :-)

Posted by Mike Walker:

“Frankly, I’m a little concerned that PT is giving fringe sites like Renew America too much publicity by commenting on their tripe.”

I think that you are very, very wrong in that regard. If there’s one lesson to learn from the handling of neo-nazi and neo-religious movements throughout post-WWII Europe, it is that fascists need to be given as much publicity as possible (though not on their own terms, of course).

Posted by Edward Braun:

“Since the Christian Right was a strong supporter of their ultimate patron (W) I think that the extent to which neo-cons have added fuel to the fire of the culture war is simply a reflection of their “throwing the religious right a bone” and using these groups to contain and work against the reminants of the counter-culture.”

I think that you are wrong on that account. Nowhere in history has a political power ever - to my knowledge at least - been able to co-opt religious nutters without being infiltrated and/or co-opted by them in the end. Additionally, your comment could be (mis)construed as the classic ‘abused’ fallacy of religous apologitics.

Posted by Arden Chatfield:

“Presumably, gay penguins didn’t exist until after ‘the Fall’.”

But of which year? :-)

-JS

JonJ, I’ll defer to your expertise regarding my statement about Hutchison. It was probably ill considered - I actually viewed him as clearly having learned (or looked up) several of the important figures in the development of philosophy that were relevant to the essay he wrote, but not having really considered the contributions of those figures in a careful manner, which is probably not that different from what you assert regarding his ability to discuss logical positivism at a cocktail party.

Who knows, maybe he thought he could pick up chicks in bars with that banter… No, that couldn’t be it, ‘cos anybody with a modicum of sense would ditch the non-groovy combover and realize that they might look better if they just got used to being bald.

But it would be funny to ask him his thoughts regarding gay penguins. Perhaps he would assert that penguins are actually be responsible for the fall. After all, look at how hard their lives are… clearly, God hates penguins! Damn you Eve penguin for causing the fall! If not for you, we would be cavorting in the Garden of Eden with plant-eatin’ velociraptors! Now God hates us all! Oops, I was channeling Mr. Huchison for a minute there… scary!

Interesting article. Over on Postive Liberty, Timothy Sandefur had an interesting post that skewers Mr. Hutchison’s argument from a Natural Law angle as well. Simply put, Hutchison and his ilk misconstrue NL as biological in foundation when it should be metaphysical. And Man as a metaphysical creature is not constrained by biology in the sense in which Hutchison et al argue. Natural Law as correctly applied no more militates against homosexuality/gay marriage than it does against chunky peanut butter (which every right-thinking person recognizes as abomination).

But it would be funny to ask him his thoughts regarding gay penguins. Perhaps he would assert that penguins are actually be responsible for the fall. After all, look at how hard their lives are… clearly, God hates penguins! Damn you Eve penguin for causing the fall! If not for you, we would be cavorting in the Garden of Eden with plant-eatin’ velociraptors! Now God hates us all! Oops, I was channeling Mr. Huchison for a minute there… scary!

A shame! I quite like the idea that the Creation of Life on Earth was really all about the glorification of the penguin, and that we humans are just a sort of incidental side effect. If nothing else, it relieves us of a lot of responsibility. :-)

My God! It’s full of penguins!

I don’t know the Chalcedon Institute

But you SHOULD. Pay attention when the name “Howard Ahmanson” comes up.

Then look at Discovery Institute’s board of directors, and who provides about one-third of their total funding.

I’m very glad to see the commentary here and agree that the article deserves the skewering. In fact, in many ways, I don’t think the skewering goes far enough. Of course, I’m here to help and am ready to do some skewering of my own.

I should start by saying that this isn’t necessarily a conservative or liberal arguement as some have put it. After all, neither side has exactly moved toward favoring gay marriage (aside from one court in Massachusetts and the legislature in California). The fact that the greatest (and loudest) opposition has been from conservative Christian does not cover the fact that many of the same arguements have been echoed by some on the Democratic side of the aisle. On the other hand, the arguement, in my view, is false no matter which side utters it.

Let’s start off with one of Hutchinson’s early arguements against skepticism:

Fred Hutchinson Wrote:

Partly due to the influence of the skeptics, Western man has gradually lost his knack for examining his presuppositions.

So how exactly are you “examining” your presuppositions if you are not looking at them with a critical eye (something that skepticism excels at).

In order to win the debate, the defenders of traditional marriage must start with their first principle, which is that man has a innate nature. All their arguments for traditional marriage must flow from this first principle by an unbroken chain of logic. In contrast, the advocates of gay marriage must reject the idea that man has an innate nature.

Nope. Not at all. The advocates of gay marriage don’t have to do so at all. They might state that the concept of “marriage” is not innate. And, since marriage is a civil contract that is offered by most faiths as a religious sacrament, there is a lot to suggest that it is external and not innate.

However, advocates of gay rights DO argue FOR an “innate nature”. The biggest arguement, after all, from gay rights advocates is that homosexuality is not a “choice” but something that is innate and, at least in part, something that comes from their biology and physiology.

This argument’s appeal is not in its logic, but in the popular American myth that we can reinvent ourselves. Jay Gatsby, the naive and dreamy protagonist of the book The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, believed he could reinvent himself. This belief led him to many illusions and follies and ultimately led to his death. The book is an American classic, because it exposes the futility of the great American myth of self-invention and the vanities of great wealth.

Hmmm… Should I point out that “Gatsby” is FICTION?

The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, marriage must also be designed.

As many have commented already. A does not necessarily follow B. Even if we assume that our biology was “designed”, marriage is not part of our biology. However, it could be (and has been) argued that sexual orientation is part of our biology and, therefore, homosexuality (along with heterosexuality and the spectrum in between) would be “designed”.

Homosexuality is contrary to that design.

Did Hutchinson get a sneak peek at the blueprints? How can he be sure that homosexuality is “contrary to that design”? That requires an assumption without any basis. That assumption is, of course, that homosexuality has no part of that plan EVEN IF there is a biological componant. (In fact, the first assumption is that there is no biological componant.)

If we are designed, there must be a Great Designer behind the design. The argument that man has a designed nature is also an argument for a Creator. The argument that man has no innate nature is also an argument against a Creator. At the root of the culture war is a conflict between theism and atheism.

At least Hutchinson admits that ID is a religious arguement instead of a scientific one, even if that arguement is a false one. As stated many times before, being against ID does not require atheism. It is a sectarian view of Christianity against other religious and non-religious views.

I shall borrow the term “intelligent design” from science and use it as a shorthand designation for a broad philosophy of human life–

Go ahead. Science isn’t using it.

Mankind has a design in general and each person has a design in particular. There is a plan for the life of each person that is implied by how he has been designed. The American audience is predisposed to believe in individual destiny.

And there we have it. If homosexuality is part of that “individual destiny” or “plan for the life of each person” then there shouldn’t be any arguement against homosexuals.

If we were not all members of the human race sharing a common nature, it would not matter what kind of sexual or social relationships we had. Individuality is good if one does not go to nihilistic extremes in the denial of a common human nature and a common morality.

Homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a “denial of a common human nature” or even a “nihilistic extreme”. It does suggest a variation from the norm. However, such variation is not necessarily harmful to the whole. And while it might mean that it varies from the “common morality” (without showing that this orientation is immoral, it would be impossible to state this), it does not (as Hutchinson seems to imply) mean that the individual varies from the “common morality” in any other way.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that this variance from the so-called “common morality” is bad. Consider how much variance from the “common morality” most people have. Most people have done things that vary from that “common morality” such as lie, steal, perhaps some heterosexual variances, etc. Are they better in their variances than homosexuals? Considering that many of these are quite allowable by law, that should suggest that the law and the “common morality” are not the same things.

The whole issue on same-sex marriage is a legal one not a religious one. There are churches across the company who have been willing to give the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples. The issue has been an unwillingness from the civil side, where the government gives the licenses, the rights, the obligations and the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples that are given to the more traditional couples without a rational basis. The only thing given has been the moralizing “presuppositions” that Hutchinson seems to favor over reason.

The mission of conservatives at this point in history is to develop a life-style, philosophy, and worldview of intelligent design. Every issue in the culture war hinges upon the question of whether man has an innate nature and whether that nature has a design from the Creator.

There was a lot of stuff before this, but it was quite repetitious. However, this statement here really shows how poor Renew America’s stance is. Push for a “Christian Nation” viewpoint despite the concept of separation of church and state. Give lip service to individual liberty (as long as that individual liberty does not conflict with the sectarian religious belief).

Evolutionary psychology does suggest that we have an “innate nature” in common. However, sexual orientation is not necessarily part of that common innate nature. Psychology also suggests that sexual orientation is a spectrum and not a few distinct points. This suggests that this arguement against homosexuality is, in fact, similar in one respect to the arguement for ID. Both seem to be based on “presuppositions” (to use Hutchinson’s term) in denial of facts. No wonder that both end up appealing to a religious authority (albeit a fringe religious authority).

The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, marriage must also be designed. Homosexuality is contrary to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must make in the debate about gay marriage.

How is this argument any better than the ones below?

“The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, flatulence must also be designed. Beano is contrary to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must make in the debate about controlling flatulence.”

“The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, cancer must also be designed. Curing cancer is contrary to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must make in the debate about cancer research.”

“The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is designed, homosexuality must also be designed. Oppressing homosexuals is contrary to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must make in the debate about homosexuality.”

How does Hutchison decide what features are part of the “design” and what features are “contrary to that design”? (Or is the stuff he doesn’t like “contrary to the design”?)

The ID algorithm…

Probabilty, probabilty, probabilty… Attack Darwin Quote Einstein Pervert science Juggle words Logicize Wave hands Shout “Runaway!” Bang coconuts Retreat Goto Probabilty, probabilty, probabilty…

But that algorithm would produce an infinite loop - ya need to put some sort of conditional on that “Goto” at the end. ;)

So? The rest of their logic is composed of infinite loops isn’t it? When was that ever a problem to a properly doublethinking IDiot?

- JS

Re “When was that ever a problem to a properly doublethinking IDiot?”

Sigh.

Yeah. I know. :(

Henry

Natural stabilizing forces are what keeps a population more uniform in terms of physical and behavioral traits. Remove those stabilizing forces, and individual variance starts becoming more frequent. Physical and behavioral traits not needed eventually atrophy, as in the case of the dodo, which lost its fear instinct and ability to fly because it evolved without natural predators; or domestic animals, which exhibit much variance because of their protected environment.

Ironically, by the same token, religious/social mandate (or “follow the crowd” mentality) dictating that everyone must marry and reproduce could one day supercede an “innate” instinctual attraction to the opposite sex as the primary reproduction strategy. As more and more individuals who lack that “innate” opposite-sex attraction reproduce, such a trait may become less uniformly typical of a population.

No wonder the Bible-thumpers don’t want evolution to be taught…

This guy’s whole argument is ludicrous. Homosexuality is something children are born with. Therefore it is innate. Therefore it is designed. Therefore the Creator cannot be the god of the Bible who declares homosexuality between two men to be an abberation! I have successfully proven the Christian god is not the Creator of ID. Fabulous!

What scares me is there a chance, just a small chance but a chance nonetheless, that these guys could actually come to power one day. Consider Nazi Germany, the people were quite ordinary, and probably more politically aware then most Americans, and the Nazi’s still managed to take power. Before the Taliban came to power Afghanistan wasn’t especially extreme in the scheme of things. It’s just possible that, following a series of major disasters these guy’s might actually gain control of America, in which case the censorship of Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology would be the least of our worries, the torturing, the disappearances, the fear, the purges, now they’d be the real problem.

Comment #49127

Posted by Pygmy Loris on September 21, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)

This guy’s whole argument is ludicrous. Homosexuality is something children are born with. Therefore it is innate. Therefore it is designed. Therefore the Creator cannot be the god of the Bible who declares homosexuality between two men to be an abberation! I have successfully proven the Christian god is not the Creator of ID.

Actually you didn’t, Pygmy. The god of the bible declares homosexuality an abomination, not an aberration. The same god didn’t have any problem creating abominations. Now I will give you, the god of the old and new testaments must have been different gods.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 18, 2005 9:10 PM.

Science in the Pub was the previous entry in this blog.

Another interesting human evolution-related paper is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter