Intelligent design vs. gay marriage

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.

That guy's bio is amusing.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison

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.

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

— El Brujo

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. ;-)

That guy's bio is amusing.

— steve

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/050818hutchison.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.

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.

— Mike Walker

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 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.

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.

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 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!

I don't know the Chalcedon Institute

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

— Fred Hutchinson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.