Genghis Khan - Barbarian or Enlightened Despot?

I watched this thought provoking video and it prompted a few thoughts. Genghis Khan here is presented in two ways. As a misunderstood benevolent despot on the one hand and as a mere bloodthirsty barbarian on the other. But which view is correct? Ultimately he was a barbarian, that no modern apologists can rightly claim otherwise. At best he could be indirectly known as a unifier (it would exaggerating to the extreme and say he was an enlightened ruler). 

What led the Mongols to conquer much of the known world? Certainly not a drive for unity and a desire to spread culture! They wanted plunder (and perhaps adventure)! That was fundamental to their conquests. For sure, their practices were barbaric (especially if one believes there are certain immutable moral truths that can't be controverted by time and culture).  But, like any people back then the Mongols had their own unique code of justice and positive aspects which improved their conquered domains in a few respects - but that doesn't make Genghis any more enlightened than any other ruler throughout history (one could argue that Hitler did positive things for Germany and therefore try to justify and contextualise his attitudes and actions in the same way as we are doing with the great Khan)! Also, we can't discount the fact that he wanted to hold on to his territory, so why not give the people something to sweeten the deal? With regard to freedom of religion, I'd say that wasn't some enlightened attitude but rather, something closer to indifference as Mongols often held traditionally shamanistic beliefs (being a highly accepting religious position) that would have made them open to other religions. 

I conclude that Genghis is certainly more barbarian - opportunistic and power hungry despot - than enlightened ruler!

Why Kitzmiller v Dover Does Not Refute Intelligent Design

I have spoken with many people who, upon being informed that I support the theory of Intelligent Design simply reply by saying: "Kitzmiller v Dover". The purpose being that they believe that merely quoting the case offers a slam-dunk refutation of Intelligent Design! Besides the fact that a court case cannot rule on the definition of science or the scientific standing of a theory, Dover is unpersuasive for the following reasons:

1. The case provides an inaccurate and partisan history of ID.
The supposed history of ID is shallow and one-sided and suppresses many key facts.

2. The case against the scientific status of ID is unpersuasive.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, demarcation criteria does not adequately preclude ID from consideration. Further, the judge makes assertions beyond his legitimate authority - that flatly contradicts both logic and the evidence presented in th court.

3. The court failed to treat religion in a neutral manner.
Judges are required by the US Constitution to treat religious questions neutrally, but Judge Jones applies different standards when examining the religious implications of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. He even attempts to decide which theological view of evolution is correct.

4. The Limited Value of the Case as Precedent.
Judge Jones purports to answer once and for all the question of whether it is lawful to include intelligent design in public school science curricula, but in fact his opinion on this question has almost no precedential value for other judges.

Indeed there are many logical issues with the judgment. The Judge's ruling is an amusing case of folly and betrays a simplistic understanding of science. But really, that critics of ID use this ruling as any sort of evidence shows the real lack of valid arguments and the degradation of reasoned discourse that can be mustered in opposition to the theory.



This ebook provides a more comprehensive argument - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=11851

Why Intelligent Design (ID) Is Science - A Response to the Inadequate Demarcation Criteria Proposed by Philosopher's of Science Against ID

In 2005, the famous Dover trial took place. It examined the scientific validity of Intelligent Design and found it wanting. Numerous detractors of the theory sought to show why ID did not meet the requirements of a proper scientific theory. The result being that Judge John E Jones III ruled: "ID is not Science". Besides the patent absurdity of a judge - with no scientific or philosophical background - ruling on such a matter which is clearly beyond the scope of his authority, this was still seen as a win for the Scientific Establishment. But is that still so today?

Since that time, the ID think tank known as the Discovery Institute has thrived amidst the vicious criticism it has received. They have also taken to responding to the critics and their claims that ID is not science, having done so in numerous articles and books published by their various supporters. One prominent defender of ID is Dr Stephen C Meyer, a Philosopher of Science who attained his Ph.D. at Cambridge University. He wrote in his 2009 book 'Signature in the Cell': "Historians and Philosopher's of Science... do not agree about how to define science. Many doubt there is even a single definition that can characterize all the difference kinds of Science." This is a fair point. This is known as the "Demarcation Problem" in the Philosophy of Science which is the philosophical problem of how to properly distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

The value of the opposition to Intelligent Design from Philosopher's of Science is being questioned. Dr Meyer, in his book mentioned earlier, refutes the various criticisms of ID and the reasons why it must not be science. He is well aware of the contradictions that result from attempting to distinguish science from pseudoscience and shows why the various attacks on the supposed unscientific nature of ID would, if applied to other accepted scientific theories also put them in the realm of pseudoscience. He goes on to convincingly argue that ID asks questions that could properly be considered scientific. This has created a crisis for Philosopher's of Science, who have been unable to acknowledge the weight of these refutations and come up with better and more comprehensive arguments.

That being said, I am eager to understand why it is that people are so adamant that ID simply is not science despite not having offered any convincing arguments to support their view. Perhaps one way to contextualize their point of view is by interpreting their opposition from the vantage of science as a social enterprise where subjective groupthink viewpoints inevitably creep in. At the heart of any human organizatiom, be it religious or political, there is a commitment to orthodoxy - correct beliefs one must hold to be considered a part of that group. This orthodoxy promotes consensus and therefore stability. One cannot idealistically conclude that merely because of the aspirations of science that it must therefore be immune to the same potential stumbling blocks faced by other human organizations. This is a reasonable lens by which to understand the attacks on the validity of ID.

What is the orthodox opinion with regard to Intelligent Design? What is this a priori assumption of the Scientific Establishment that MUST be assented to? It is a commitment to "Methodological Naturalism". This concept posits that, for something to be scientific, it must explain by reference to purely material causes. Naturalism implicitly rejects the possibility of Intelligent Design regardless of whether it is true or not. Indeed, this is a subjective fact for the Scientific Establishment. However, As far as I can see, trying to turn the ID controversy into a mere semantic dispute (of whether it is science) detracts from the real scientific challenges posed by the theory. One should not ask: "does this fit my subjective definition of science?" But rather: "Is Intelligent Design true? Does it provide a better explanation than its naturalistic competitors?" A careful study of the evidence will reveal that indeed it does.[1]

To conclude I ask, will this demarcation problem ever be resolved to show what many people feel must be true - namely that Intelligent Design is not science? Perhaps. But for now we can be assured that the the baseless consensus within the Scientific Community will do.






[1] For further reading, I recommend Dr Stephen C Meyer's books: "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt" for some of the comprehensive arguments for Intelligent Design.