WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO “MASTER INTELLECTS” CREATORS OF THE “RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENT DESIGN” AND THE “POLITICAL/SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENT DESIGN”?
Many people are so fascinated in attacking “creationism” and “intelligent design” that they are not paying attention to another kind of “creationism” that is taking place in the world today. This “new creationism,” however, may be more “intrinsically absurd” than that one of Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado.
Fears about religious creationism essentially spring from an argument that maintains that the universe and all things were produced, and continue to exist only through the decision, plan and action of a supernatural agent (God). And that kind of knowledge, our scientists and other frightened adherents say, is a “threat” to science education and should have no place in the scientific community. Fine!
What about that kind of knowledge, presumably “scientific,” that from our political SCIENCES departments in universities teaches us that ”democracy is the best form of government,” and that only through the decision, plan and action of a superpower or imperialist super agent (U.S.A) imposing such best “intelligent design” in the world, it would be a better place to live? I am not using the words “imposing” and “best” arbitrarily. Let us see a simple illustration from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack who recently, while denying an U.S. invasion in Venezuela, said: “Our issue is with states that don’t govern in a democratic manner.” Are you with me?
Well, you would argue that religion and politics are quite different matters, and I agree. But, as we know, analogies are scientific tools used precisely to generate scientific knowledge between quite different matters. All I am doing here is offering an analogical argument between what I see as “political/scientific creationism” and “religious creationism.” Is there any significant difference between the God’s “intelligent design” and the superpower’s “intelligent design” (“best form of government”)?
I am not saying that “democracy” is something “bad” or that this political system lacks causes for pride. The issue is that we, as a superpower, are institutionalizing this “best form” of government in the world as the product of a “scientific design” through electoral politics, social engineering, wars, market equilibrium, and not as the human action of authentic and immediate actors. If not, why have we made an issue with other societies that historically have undertaken “different forms” of government (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, etc,)?
The answer is simple: Those “different forms” of government cannot be “intelligent designs.” Why not? Because, according to the imperialist plan, those nations cannot have an independent “purpose” except be part of the world capitalist structure that sociologists like Immanuel Wallerstein have called “world-system”?
What is the difference, then, between the two “master intellects” creators of the “religious intelligent design” and the “political/scientific intelligent design”?
--Wilfredo Gutiérrez.
-----------/
Fears about religious creationism essentially spring from an argument that maintains that the universe and all things were produced, and continue to exist only through the decision, plan and action of a supernatural agent (God). And that kind of knowledge, our scientists and other frightened adherents say, is a “threat” to science education and should have no place in the scientific community. Fine!
What about that kind of knowledge, presumably “scientific,” that from our political SCIENCES departments in universities teaches us that ”democracy is the best form of government,” and that only through the decision, plan and action of a superpower or imperialist super agent (U.S.A) imposing such best “intelligent design” in the world, it would be a better place to live? I am not using the words “imposing” and “best” arbitrarily. Let us see a simple illustration from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack who recently, while denying an U.S. invasion in Venezuela, said: “Our issue is with states that don’t govern in a democratic manner.” Are you with me?
Well, you would argue that religion and politics are quite different matters, and I agree. But, as we know, analogies are scientific tools used precisely to generate scientific knowledge between quite different matters. All I am doing here is offering an analogical argument between what I see as “political/scientific creationism” and “religious creationism.” Is there any significant difference between the God’s “intelligent design” and the superpower’s “intelligent design” (“best form of government”)?
I am not saying that “democracy” is something “bad” or that this political system lacks causes for pride. The issue is that we, as a superpower, are institutionalizing this “best form” of government in the world as the product of a “scientific design” through electoral politics, social engineering, wars, market equilibrium, and not as the human action of authentic and immediate actors. If not, why have we made an issue with other societies that historically have undertaken “different forms” of government (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, etc,)?
The answer is simple: Those “different forms” of government cannot be “intelligent designs.” Why not? Because, according to the imperialist plan, those nations cannot have an independent “purpose” except be part of the world capitalist structure that sociologists like Immanuel Wallerstein have called “world-system”?
What is the difference, then, between the two “master intellects” creators of the “religious intelligent design” and the “political/scientific intelligent design”?
--Wilfredo Gutiérrez.
-----------/
e-mail:
