Posted on 10/22/2005 2:53:50 PM PDT by RobRoy
Fred Plans To Devolve
Bacteria More Respectable
October 16, 2005
I read with what would be despair if I cared enough that the courts, this time in Pennsylvania, are again getting their knickers in a knot over Evolution. Oh help. There must be another planet somewhere upon which to hide. Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, singing commercials, delayed flights, and Evolution. Anyway:
Why, oh why, are the curricula of the schools the business of the courts? If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennslyvania. Yes, I know: In practice, both freedom of expression and local government are regarded as ideals greatly to be avoided. The desire to centralize government, impose doctrine, and punish doubt is never far below the surface, anywhere. Thus our highly controlled media, our “hate-speech” laws, our political correctness and, now, Evolutionary Prohibition. The Catholic Church once burned heretics. The Church of Evolution savages them in obscure journals and denies them tenure and publication. As a heretic I believe that I would prefer the latter, but the intolerance is the same.
I note that Compulsory Evolutionists are fellow travelers of the regnant cultural Marxism, though I don’t think that they are aware of it. They display the same hermetic materialism, the same desire to suppress dissent by the application of centralized governmental power, the same weird hostility to religion. They do not say, “I think Christianity is nonsense and will therefore ignore it,” but rather “These ideas shall not be permitted.” The justification often is pseudo-constitutional: “the separation of church and state.” Neither the phrase nor the idea is found in the Constitution. If, for example, it is unconstitutional to have a nativity scene on a town square, why did no one notice this, certainly to include the Founding Fathers, until at least 1950? One might point out, fruitlessly, that Creationism, communism, Christianity, and capitalism are all major intellectual currents and therefore ought to be explained to the young. Not likely. The free market of ideas applies only to one’s own ideas.
Now, what grave consequences are thought to await if children hear briefly in school an argument that they have heard a dozen times in the course of ordinary life? Will the foundations of civilization crack? The birds of the air plunge, appalled, to earth? The planets shudder in their orbits and fall inward in dismay? Surely everyone short of the anencephalic knows of Creationism.
Or is it thought that kids attracted to the sciences will abruptly change their course through life and enter the clergy? That applications to graduate school in biochemistry will cease? Children learn (or did) of the Greek gods and goddesses, and that ancient people believed that the earth rode on the back of a giant turtle. I have not heard that they now sacrifice oxen to Athena.
One plausible explanation for this rigid evolutionary monotheism, though I think an incorrect one, is a fear that the children might come to believe in Creationism. Unlikely, but again, so what? A belief in Creationism does not prevent one from working in the sciences. A goodly number of scientists, to include biochemists, are in fact Christian and, some of them, Creationists. Others presumably are Buddhists or Hindus. The only thing for which acceptance of Creationism renders one unsuitable is…Evolutionism.
A more likely explanation is a fear that children might realize that a great deal of Evolution, not having been established, must be accepted on faith, and that a fair amount of it doesn’t make a lot of sense. While Creationism is unlikely to convert children into snake-handlers, it does suggest that orthodox Evolution can be examined critically. Bad juju, that.
Now (and I hope this doesn’t bore those who have read me before on the matter), an entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple. (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no. (2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no. (3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no. (4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.
I once posed these questions in a column on Fredoneverything.net and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none—not one—answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.
This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers. I have spent countless hours as a reporter talking to scientists, as distinct from zealots with a scientific background. Without exception that I can remember, they were rational, honest, and forthcoming. Yes, they were often trying to establish a pet theory. But they said, “I think this is so, and here’s the evidence, and I think it’s pretty solid, but I still need to show this or that, and no, we haven’t, but I hope we will.” If I expressed doubts, they either showed my clearly and civilly why I was wrong, or said, “Good point. Here’s what we think.” Parenthetically, my impression, based on a small sample, is that the more incensed of the Evolutionists tend to be either of the hard Right or the hard Left: those who need to believe one thing categorically seem to need to believe other things categorically. Which means that if they are wrong, they are unlikely to notice it.
And this is what disturbs me about them. I do not object to the content of Evolutionism. Some, all, or part of it may be correct. I would like to know. A more fascinating question does not readily come to mind. But dispassionate discussion with them is not possible, anymore than it is with Gloria Steinem or Herbert Marcuse or Cornell West, and for exactly the same reasons. They are the same people. How sad.
Yet again, they are nailed succinctly and effectively. Who are "they"? Well, you will "know them by their works" on this and other threads...
Let the games begin!
Is that so? Just wait until I get my 200 page explanation ready. Then you'll be sorry!
He's right.
"If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennsylvania."
Sure it is... But if they do it by dropping math or English or real science then they shouldn't expect those kids to be treated as if they had a valid high school education.
I'd like to prevent that harm to the children because education for kids is important to the wellbeing of the country.
Sigh...No he's not. If I decide to pull my child from a science class because they start teaching religion, does my child get a pass?
Who decides what creationist theory get taught? Shall we spend our time in biology covering every religions creationist story (and leave the ten minutes left for a quick look at science?)?
The major problem IMHO with this whole ID thing is the moment it's incorporated every religion is going to want to be represented (and sorry quite rightly to).
Creationism should be kept in religious studies.
It's not that hard to understand.
Fred Reed used to be a good read. Now he's just tiresome.
A quick web search suggests that there are about 4,200 extant religions.
If you allow ten minutes for each, that amounts to nearly 4 hours each school day.
But don't worry, the CS/ID movement is not about teaching those other religions.
He's right.
Thank you for agreeing that the plaintiffs in the Dover, PA lawsuit -- who are parents -- have the right to challenge the creationism that's being forced into their kids' science classes by a handful of board members.
I'm glad to see that you and Fred Reed agree with the lawsuit that the PARENTS are using to challenge the board's poor decision, and that you agree that it is, indeed, "their business" to do so.
But don't worry, the CS/ID movement is not about teaching those other religions.
Exactly and my guess is that if one parent complained about not being represented, the judge would side with the parent in about ten minutes.
The whole thing would be a awful mess pretty quickly.
Then again hey it's only our children's education.
Those subjects have already been dropped, as a rule - along with history, geography, foreign languages - with the result that it's generally known that a high-school diploma doesn't represent any identifiable level of educational achievement ... simply a pulse and an acceptance of tedium.
Yeah, it sure is awful when we "spam" threads with large amounts of supporting evidence for evolution because yet another creationist has lied and said that there isn't any.
I think of articles like this one and others.
Yes, I can see why you would find comfort in essays which misrepresent large numbers of things in order to reinforce your shaky belief that there's something terribly wrong with evolutionary biology. You've done it before, and I have no doubt you'll do it again.
I note, however, that Reed didn't bother to actually try to refute, or even discuss, the evidence or the science itself. Instead, he relies on ad hominem and innuendo. I can see why, though -- the creationists don't have the facts on their side, so they have to engage in such underhanded distractions and chest-thumping self-righteousness as a substitute for being able to support their position based on the actual evidence.
Yet again, they are nailed succinctly and effectively.
If believing that brings you comfort, I'm happy for you.
Who are "they"? Well, you will "know them by their works" on this and other threads...
You mean the anti-evolution creationists who keep telling falsehoods and engage in constant misrepresentations in order to dishonestly attack a straw-man version of their actual opponents' position? Yeah, I agree, I *do* know them by their works.
Let the games begin!
That's the problem, you keep treating serious subjects as a game.
Was your prior attempt part of 'new' math?
Old math, low caffeine level...
"But don't worry, the CS/ID movement is not about teaching those other religions."
Here we go again with the "straw man." Creation science and ID are two wholly different ideas. Creation science rests on a literal interpretation of genesis and thus is rooted in the judeo-christian and, I think, islamic religions. ID simply states that the reocrd of available scientific evidence to date indicates intelligent design as the explanation for life and especially of man. Just about any religion that believes in god or gods could fall into that category. Maybe even pantheism.
Darwinsism, on the other hand, represents the religion of naturalism...that is, that there is no God, and that life started by chance, and has evolved in to the diversity of species we see today, by chance. Darwinism has compelling evidence of evolution to such an extent as variations in species, but is lacking in species to species evidence. And certainly, has no commpelling evidence that life began by chance...only naturalistic speculation.
Exactly. Some don't realize that evolution wasn't always taught in schools. I remember science being taught in an "ID theme" when I was a kid....which was the norm THEN. The advances in science were tremendous and our education system was the envy of every nation.
Now, we've rewritten history, math, lowered the reading skill levels...all so no one is offended or left out. As a result..we graduate illiterates and pass them on to college (if they're good in sports) then wonder why they can't function or compete in the real world.
Sure that handful is a majority of the school board (more than half, at least) which was elected by more than half of those who chose to vote in the relevant elections. In the United States, we prefer to have decisions made by elected officials, rather than by lawsuits. At least we did, when students learned more about the basics of Constitutional government than they did about "alternative lifestyles."
Those who are unhappy with the actions of the elected school board should be motivated to try very hard to put their own candidates in office at the next opportunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.