For those who aren’t in this country, Kevin Rudd is Australia’s Prime Minister. 
Unfortunately, work has gotten in the way of me writing too much about this right now, but it caught my eye while I was browsing the news. Kevin Rudd has come out as saying he believes there is an intelligent cause for the existence of the universe (ok, not just any old intelligence, but the Anglican god himself).
Kevin Rudd, so far, has been a more progressive Prime Minister than our previous one (John Howard), what with the Apology to the Stolen Generations and ratifying Kyoto and all, but he hasn’t had much time to show us all if he’s actually much the same as ol’ Johnny. I don’t have a problem if my Prime Minister considers himself religious. I really really don’t. As long as his religion doesn’t influence policy. How long before his conscience demands that Intelligent Garbage be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution? Some may scoff and say that would never happen in Oz, but this statement from Ruddy scares me a little:
If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I’ve got to say it [creation of the universe] probably wouldn’t have happened.
So I think there is an intelligent mind at work.
Oh, right! He used the phrase ‘mathematical probabilities’, so he must know what he’s talking about.
This makes me angry. More later, as I have some deadlines to meet!
August 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm |
His justification for why he believes in the existence of a god is the very definition of circularity, but he doesn’t actually say that “the intelligent mind at work” is the Anglican god he worships. I daresay he believes that they are the same, but I think there is a danger here of strawmanning Rudd with a whole set of beliefs he might not actually hold, such as (for example) evolution denialism or the inclusion of ID on the science syllabus.
I’m sure the fundies will seize upon Rudd’s remarks as a vindication of the push to teach intelligent design as science in schools; in fact, they’ve already begun.
August 29, 2008 at 10:35 pm |
Thanks for your comment AV,
I agree that I might be ’strawmanning’ Rudd with my comments, but my post was a visceral reaction, and I have to admit that I didn’t stop to think about the logical fallacies that might be contained therein.
I didn’t suggest (or intend to suggest) that Rudd was a denier of evolution, but rather, that he is a supporter of Intelligent Design. Evolution is the scientific explanation for the complexity and diversity of life (and NOT about the origins of the universe), without the need for recourse to supernatural causes. Supporters of Intelligent Design might accept evolution on some level, but they look to a supernatural ‘first cause’ for life and, significantly, the origins of the universe. It’s not really comparing apples with apples, when you think about it
My assertion is that if religion is such an important part of Rudd’s life, it will be difficult for him to divorce his personal views from his educational policies. Moreover, since Rudd is the king of prevarication, I found it very disturbing that he would be so unequivocal in his views about this topic in particular. It smacks of fundamentalism.
It’s difficult to predict what will happen. We can only hope Rudd keeps his religious views where they belong – in his personal life.
August 29, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
I agree that I might be ’strawmanning’ Rudd with my comments
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were, but I think there’s a danger that somebody will. As you can see, the fundies are already on the case. Rudd’s lack of explanation of how he gets from X (where X = there is an intelligent mind that created the Universe) to Y (where Y = that intelligent mind is God) is not helping his cause.
Supporters of Intelligent Design might accept evolution on some level, but they look to a supernatural ‘first cause’ for life and, significantly, the origins of the universe. It’s not really comparing apples with apples, when you think about it
You’re right, but there is a lot of ambiguity regarding the term Intelligent Design and the set of ideas to which it most appropriately applies. In the broadest sense, anyone who holds the position that a deity exists and this deity created the universe is an advocate of intelligent design (insofar as the deity is believed to be intelligent). The most vocal supporters of ID and its inclusion on the science syllabus favour a narrower view that is more obviously anti-evolution.
My assertion is that if religion is such an important part of Rudd’s life, it will be difficult for him to divorce his personal views from his educational policies.
Rudd claims that his faith informs his policies. If that is the case, the citizens of this country have a right—and the media has a duty—to examine thoroughly and critically why Rudd holds the beliefs he does.
September 4, 2008 at 5:40 am |
Don’t throw all Deists in the same (sinking) boat! There is a huge difference between believing that some sort of intelligence might be involved in the big bang, and believing that his name is Josh, he likes fine cabinetry, and really wants to get to know you.
September 26, 2008 at 3:08 am |
I’m not familiar with the particulars of Australian politics but has this man never heard of the anthropic principle? Even if the universe were the result of a nearly infinitely unlikely set of mathematical accidents, that is still not an argument for design. The universe exists, therefore, those possibilities, no matter how unlikely, must have come about or we wouldn’t be here to muse on it.
I’m heartened to see that this sort of foolishness isn’t limited to my own country. On the other hand, I’d have more hope for the future of the world if it were.