Conservatives against Darwin
This is an awesome article. My favorite quote:
"Darwin was used by the devil to give the anti-God folk something to talk about, debate, get mad about, scream about, and have school committees for. Darwin was simply another mortal down through history who was instrumented by forces of darkness to war against Creator God. So what’s new?"
Really sums up the religious right. Dismiss progress as the work of the devil and live happily ever after in a fantasy world as you earn $5 an hour at Wal Mart and pray your son doesn't come home from Iraq in a box.
"Darwin was used by the devil to give the anti-God folk something to talk about, debate, get mad about, scream about, and have school committees for. Darwin was simply another mortal down through history who was instrumented by forces of darkness to war against Creator God. So what’s new?"
Really sums up the religious right. Dismiss progress as the work of the devil and live happily ever after in a fantasy world as you earn $5 an hour at Wal Mart and pray your son doesn't come home from Iraq in a box.
posted by mochi at 11:27 AM
13 Comments:
Sounds like some of those Darwin fundamentalists talking about intelligent design...
Wackos!
-Jack
1. Jack, is there such a thing as "Darwin fundamentalists"? Or are you just trying to be provocative? I think the "Darwin fundamentalists" died many decades ago.
2. The guy in the article sums it up well at the end when he defines himself and those who share his views as "believers." It is only faith... not fact.
Well, Shea...trying to be a little provocative. I find people don't recognize their own faith when it is framed in a different paradigm. Science is about questions, and I have a friend who worships it. He thinks that it provides all of the answers, and I have to remind him of its youth and inexperience (science's). I am one of those few philosophers that does not believe there is such a thing as "historical fact". All past is perception and conjecture, and science is largely limited to what it can observe present tense. I view someone who presents Darwins "theory" as "fact" as being every bit the religious fundamentalist they accuse others of being.
I agree too that the believing one construct or the other is faith. The Bible I think even admits that its construct is faith when it says, "Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
There is though room for science in study. For example, if someone came up with another theory, then those hypotheses within that theory can be tested by science with its existing tools. So if I was to theorize that the world began as an ice cream cone, then science could go about discovering the facts. This is what science is all about, and scientific method can be applied to many things. That was what I was trying to point out in the "intelligent design" theory is that it can be studied scientifically as a theory, but can no more be presented as fact as Darwin's theory can be. Truth be known, if the Mars Rover discovers extinct life on mars, microbes, etc., then this will give rise to new theories which should be entertained and all humanity should be educated on. I think assigning "intelligent design" to the "religion" category is a little bit of a simplistic view to be honest, and reflects more of a bias than anything.
-Jack
P.S. Really enjoyable topic of discussion!
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Another link of interest I have found is:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#introduction
The only problem is that it does not present an entirely objective view, because it provides an essay by the pro position, and gives the con opportunity for rebuttal, but fails to allow the pro side to address the rebuttal. Keeping in mind that this is a fundamental flaw in the presentation, it is interesting to see both sides and their take. One thing of note too is the tone of the writers...I have always wondered that if people's arguments stood on their own merit why they had to approach the argument with a tone of derision. Anyhow, ifn' you guys have the time, its interesting.
-Jack
Jack, there are historical facts. Everything that actually happens, in fact, actually happens. If it did, it did; therefore it is true.
Just because the story about what happened is screwed up after years of poor re-telling, does not make the true thing that happened any less true.
As for scientific theories and scientific facts: Darwin's theory was a theory until it was proven. Then it became a fact. Or, are we to be sceptical of science when it suits us? How do we know electricity is not just a theory? Or gravity? The distance of the sun? The speed of light?
You know what? The day they succeed in forcing public schools to teach fundamentalist christian doctrine in science class, they sure as hell better start giving sermons in church that the bible and everything it says is just some guys' opinions about what might have happened. And they better give Darwin, et al., equal time in Sunday school.
Unless they choose hypocrisy.
What's the generalization? Ten of the bible belt states share the lowest average incomes and the highest number of troops deployed to Iraq.
Challenging evoluntionary theory in public schools, by whatever name, is REALLY only the continuation of the response since Origin of Species was first published. It challenges a fundamentalist, creationist, God-based assumption about the world. It needn't .. it is perfectly consistent to believe that there is an "intelligent designer" who set evolution in motion, in exactly the same way that one accepts evil in the world as God's gift of free will working itself towards enlightenment. The primary driver here is to undermine the evolutionary paradigm. Just because the theory doesn't provide all answers doesn't mean that continued research and refinement should be dismissed. When the Copernican understanding replaced the Ptolemian view of the Universe, it did so with testable, provable hypotheses, which sprang from observable facts.
Democracy is a funny animal. It does not protect us from foolishness or error. And federalism allows (at least in theory) local control over perceived truth. I suppose that if in Texas, the democratic polity chooses to teach creationism instead of, or along side of evolutionary theory, it is their right to make that decision (as long as they stop short of the Establishment clause). Of course, that leaves others of us the right to mock them for their anti-scientific views, and question the capability of those educated in that environment.
And just to show that it cuts both ways, the polity in Massachusetts has declared same-sex marriage legal. It therefore becomes appropriate, and legal in Massachusetts to teach tolerance in the schools around areas of sexual orientation. It remains the right of Texans (and Mormon Governors) to revile that political choice as perverse and question the morality of anyone from that Commonwealth.
As has been stated many times .. democracy sucks .. except it's way better than any of the other alternatives. We should all remember this ... self-righteousness and intolerance for the legitimacy of the views of others (even the minority) erodes the underpinnings of democracy, to our discredit.
Shea,
I don't think any objective scientist would call Darwin's theory "fact". How did you arrive at that conclusion?
(Gee, even in schools they still refer to it as the "theory" of evolution--when did I miss the day it became fact?)
Mochi,
I agree, the blue states and all in them are so much better than the rest of us. They are perfecting that French habit of looking down their noses at everyone really well...
-Jack
Jack, the phrase "theory of evolution" has been around so long, some schools probably do still use it. I'll bet more schools use the term "natural selection," which has been proven through scientific observation.
It's possible they hadn't gotten around to teaching that when you were in school back in the "olden days" 8^)
Quite possibly, Shea, quite possibly...
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home