We are all aware that Thomas Jefferson was one of the more skeptical founding fathers when it came to Christianity and religion. However, many might find it surprising to see that Jefferson found it inconceivable to think that there is no design or designer in nature (of course, he was pre-Darwin ;):
I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it
is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction
of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its
composition. (emphasis added)
The
movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by
the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our
earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere,
animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles,
insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or
mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is
impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in
all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a
fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and
regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their
regenerator into new and other forms.
Yes, we all know he was a Deist. But not a Christian. I seriously doubt he would have subscribed to the infantile version of history described in Genesis.
yes, that's why this post is about ID, not any of the things you are mentioning.
Please. Your attempt to induct Jefferson into the ranks of modern-day ID is unhistorical and dishonest. Of course, why should I expect anything more of people like you, defenders of genocide and Hitlerian solutions?
Why is it dishonest? His words speak pretty clearly. I think to try to induct him into the God-hating secularist camp is dishonest.
Obviously, he's not in the "God-hating secularist camp" but neither is he in the christianist theocon camp. Modern notions of "ID" (in reality, a mask for xian creationism) have little, if anything, to do with his views.
I followed the links back to the original letter to John Adams and found a richer, much more subtle, argument than the excerpt you provide above would imply. Jefferson was not arguing for the modern-day idea of "ID" (that of conservative Christian polemics – Creationism). Your argument (and that of your source) distorts his opinion wildly. A couple of other quotes from the full letter to give it context, and to explain further what he meant by "God":
It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knolege of the existence of a god!
and…
The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
These are just excepts, and I urge everyone to read the whole thing. Fascinating!
"I followed the links back to the original letter to John Adams and found a richer, much more subtle, argument than the excerpt you provide above would imply."
Marvelous!
1. If those quotes from Jefferson were part of the same letter, you divorced them from the ID content, so how are we to evaluate his ID statements any differently if you don't provide the context?
2. Those who parrot the "id is creationism" mantra are ignorant, living on straw men and not reality.
No one is saying that Jefferson believed exactly what modern day IDers are proposing, only that he might agree in principle, if not content, with them. I think the quotes I provided are just as 'telling' as the ones you provided.
BTW, your quote merely affirmed what I already affirmed, that he was no fan of religion. You have neglected to contradict my ID assertion.
Here is even more on his view of Creation:
You say that is not even close to ID? Dream on.
"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis." –>
beautiful.
My point is that Jefferson's argument wasn't for the modern notion of Intelligent Design (the fact that you capitalize it refers to a coherent philosophy, one contra evolutionary theory). The modern theory of ID is one formulated explicitly to combat Darwinian Evolution and has been substituted for the more explicitly Christian dogma of Creationism. If you will read the letter in full, Jefferson is arguing against both Christian and atheist views (sorry, Cin). In fact, he sees much of atheist feeling as a reaction to the absurdities of "revealed" religion, particularly of the Jewish and Christian brand. To him, one doesn't need Judeo-Christian revelation to detect a creative "Agent" (as he puts it) at work in the order he finds in nature. He doesn't try to "prove," scientifically, the intervention of a god in nature (as do ID'ers). He merely expresses his conviction that such an Agent is at work, a feeling nourished by his investigations into nature and its workings. He explicitly disavows Judeo-Christian dogma to the point of derision and contempt. I very much seriously doubt that he would agree in any way with modern-day ID'ers, as they are, one and all, identified with xian thought and politics. (I'd be fascinated to see what he thought of Evolutionary theory.) He was a Deist, not a Theist or Christian, and his philosophy was informed by Enlightenment era notions of reason. So, please, have the decency to leave him out of your jihad against science and reason.
My point is that Jefferson's argument wasn't for the modern notion of Intelligent Design (the fact that you capitalize it refers to a coherent philosophy, one contra evolutionary theory).
I don't mean to bring up homosexuality, but I think that this mirrors the same sort of specious argument used when people say "Paul the Apostle could not have known about homosexuality as we know it today, because we now know something about its origin."
The fact is, despite the popularity of 'scientific' lies and half truths like the normalcy of homosexuality, or the Darwinian origins of life, the truth has pre-existed both, even if it's presentation wasn't formulated to reject such specific, modern deceptions.
Jefferson's formulation, even though predating Darwinism, says exactly what ID says. My point is that intelligent people realize that there is a creator, or as the scriptures clearly say:
The modern theory of ID is one formulated explicitly to combat Darwinian Evolution and has been substituted for the more explicitly Christian dogma of Creationism.
First, so what if it was formulated to combat the Darwinian hegemony? Darwinism as an idea (but not as a scientific fact) has taken over the minds of science to the point of demanding unearned allegiance, persecuting those who question it, and harming science in other ways, such as inhibiting free inquiry with dumb ideas like Junk DNA and vestigial organs, not to mention the abysmally incorrect family trees based on morphology.
The fact that ID exists to combat Darwinian stupidity is a feather in its cap, and a boon to all who value free thinking.
Second, while Creationists may support ID and desire to use it as a way to get Creationism into schools, the canard that ID is creationism is ludicrous. And believe it or not, many Creationists like ID primarily *because* it is not religious, and they realize that God suppositions in science can only be loosely made, and perhaps should be minimized in order to do good science.
As most of the major ID proponents have clearly stated, ID does not postulate a God, even less the Christian God, and is even compatible with such evolutionary ideas as panspermia.
I don't mean to bring up homosexuality…
Then why do so? This is just more proof that you are strangely fixated on the topic. In fact, you are either being deliberately or subconsciously provocative, I think: you know you are in the wrong here, so you try to needle me on something you know I'll take umbrage at. As it is, I'll merely dismiss that part of your comment as just more of the same baseless and evidence-free assertions as we always get from you.
The problem with your analysis lies in the two different meanings of "intelligent design" involved here. Small cap intelligent design is merely a description of one's belief ("Jefferson believes, based on his observations and the level of knowledge at the time, that some form of intelligence was involved in putting together the cosmos."); large cap Intelligent Design (your view) is a coherent ideology that is attempting to erect a competing and alternate scientific explanation for the processes of nature. You are deliberately the confusing the two, using a sort of slight-of-hand to substitute your view (I.D.) with Jefferson's (i.d.) to advance your religious agenda. In fact, your position is exactly what Jefferson was condemning in his letter. Of course, your intellectual dishonesty and religious superstition will nix any possibility of getting such an admission from you. But, since Jefferson can no longer defend himself from such scurrilous distortions, I am happy to do so on his behalf (as poor a substitute as I undoubtedly am).
Then why do so? This is just more proof that you are strangely fixated on the topic.
Actually, I bring it up because the only other place I've seen this type of reasoning used is in that discussion, and by you, among others.
In fact, you are either being deliberately or subconsciously provocative,
Both, I have to admit. I'm working on NOT doing that, tough habit to break.
large cap Intelligent Design (your view) is a coherent ideology that is attempting to erect a competing and alternate scientific explanation for the processes of nature.
that's an interesting distinction, but I think the difference is not really in content, but in organization – that is, IDers never had to be an organized, political and scientific ideology until Darwinism's charade pushed their view out of science, even though it was the dominant view during the birth and flowering of western science.
And it is not an alternative to natural processes, but to the Darwinian idea of origins, common descent, and the idea that complexity arose from natural processes.
You are deliberately the confusing the two, using a sort of slight-of-hand to substitute your view (I.D.) with Jefferson's (i.d.) to advance your religious agenda. In fact, your position is exactly what Jefferson was condemning in his letter.
I am not purposely doing any kind of deception, though I may be confused by your distinction.
And I think that you are totally wrong about what Jefferson was condemning. It seems to me that he was addressing two separate things in the letter – his disdain for Calvinism, and his disdain for the opposite idea that God did not create the world. He was saying that those who argue for the pre-existence of the world, self-created, was philosophically and logically incorrect. I.E. he was arguing that, apart from any Christian view, a logical person would assume a divine intelligence created things, and not random, impersonal nothingness created it, to whit:
Then why do so? This is just more proof that you are strangely fixated on the topic.
Actually, I bring it up because the only other place I've seen this type of reasoning used is in that discussion, and by you, among others.
False. I would hope that you'd recall that I argued the direct opposite: that Paul would be as horrified by gay equality today as he was then. My point was that the Bible is anti-gay, patriarchal, and irrelevant and toxic to modern gay people – as irrelevant and toxic as Mein Kampf is to Jewish people.