Skip to comments.
Assault on Science Spreads
Objectivist Center ^
| 2/3/04
| Edward Hudgins
Posted on 02/03/2004 6:36:45 PM PST by RJCogburn
The assault on science that I discussed in my January 30th Report from the Front unfortunately is not confined to bookstores at the Grand Canyon.
Proposed curriculum guidelines for Georgia schools suggest that the word evolution not be used. It would be replaced with biological changes over time. The Georgia Education Department already omits much material referring to the Earths age and the relationship of various living organisms to one another. (Yes, if governments didnt own and run schools, bad ideas might be better confined. But unfortunately thats not the case.)
State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox maintains that the basic ideas of evolution can still be discussed but that the curriculum revision removes a buzzword that causes controversy. Of course, this is a buzzword only to those creationist crusaders whonearly 80 years after the Scopes trialare still obsessed by an urge to censor the study of the origin of species.
What are they scared of? Why does this truth so frighten them? Some seem to believe that if we do not acknowledge that humans are special because God created us, then there is no basis for ethics and moral anarchy will rule. As Dostoevsky wrote, If God is dead, all things are permitted. This belief, of course, reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of ethics. As Ayn Rand shows, the need for an ethical code arises from the fact that our survival and flourishing require us to exercise our free will and rational capacityto focus our minds, to choose to think. And it is just the creationists failure to do thistheir refusal to seek and acknowledge the truththat leads them both to reject evolution and the mountain of evidence that confirms it, and to reject rational self-interest as a basis of morality.
Sometimes profoundly irrational ideas might lie dormant, confined to some obscure corner of a culture. But since ideas have consequences, they are apt to break out like a virus with terrible consequences. It is thus necessary that we continue to fight to establish a rational culture or its irrational opposite could be our lot.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: crevolist; science; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
1
posted on
02/03/2004 6:36:45 PM PST
by
RJCogburn
To: PatrickHenry
Incoming!
To: RJCogburn
Personally i dont see evolution and creationism as being mutually exclusive of each other. teach both.
3
posted on
02/03/2004 6:39:53 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(.50 cal border fence)
To: cripplecreek
I'm with you.
4
posted on
02/03/2004 7:01:33 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
5
posted on
02/03/2004 7:02:03 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
To: cripplecreek
They are...Creation is faith...and Evolution is Science.
Granted evolution is just a theory. Much like the theory of gravity or electromagnetism. However I don't see folks jumping off high buildings to dispute gravity or sticking a fork in a socket to challenge electromagnetism.
Why is evolution so easily assailed?..because of scientific reason?...no. Because there are no dire consequences for challeging evolution.
6
posted on
02/03/2004 7:05:48 PM PST
by
tcuoohjohn
(Follow The Money)
To: tcuoohjohn
great post
7
posted on
02/03/2004 7:17:45 PM PST
by
adam_az
(Be vewy vewy qwiet, I'm hunting weftists.)
To: tcuoohjohn
Why is evolution so easily assailed?..because of scientific reason?...no. Because there are no dire consequences for challeging evolution. And because it is a slow process. Evolutionary changes within a single human lifetime can hardly be noticed.
8
posted on
02/03/2004 7:22:24 PM PST
by
reg45
To: RJCogburn
"This belief, of course, reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of ethics. As Ayn Rand shows, the need for an ethical code arises from the fact that our survival and flourishing require us to exercise our free will and rational capacityto focus our minds, to choose to think. "
Men can create all sorts of morality codes, and yes, religions and anti-religions. There is only one reality, and it would behoove man to seek that one Truth, established by our creator. Only the code established by God has authority over our lives.
9
posted on
02/03/2004 7:28:32 PM PST
by
Rocky
To: reg45
And because it is a slow process. Evolutionary changes within a single human lifetime can hardly be noticed.Funny - I have (had) two sisters that are both blondes (natural) - and my brothers and I have brown hair and we both have the same parents! My Mom's hair was kinda dark brown and my Dad's was brown ...
How does that work anyway!?
10
posted on
02/03/2004 7:28:35 PM PST
by
_Jim
( <--- Ann C. and Rush L. speak on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
To: _Jim
Your parents both carry the recessive gene for blondness. The gene is called recessive because when a given individual has both a recessive gene and the corresponding dominant gene (in this case, for dark hair), the dominant gent wins out. Even so, the individual is a "carrier" for the recessive trait in that he can contribute the recessive gene to offspring. Your sisters got a blond copy from both your father and your mother, while you and your brother got two darks or a dark and a blond gene. You and your brother could have blond children if you are blond "carriers", but if your sisters marry blond men, they will by definition have blond children.
To: RJCogburn
> What are they scared of? Why does this truth so frighten them?
I know there is a lot of fear out there, and perhaps ignorance - but it is on both sides of this issue. This is science, and not all times is that fact. It is not faith. I am very scientific, and I am a man of great faith. The two go hand-in-hand in my eyes. There is a scientific difference between theory and law. And even when it comes to scientific law, there have been times that scientific laws have been proven false. A prime example of that is Newtonian mechanics, in particular the "law of gravity". Sorry folks, but Newton was not always right. And it is pretty obvious that Darwin wasn't right either. A scientific mind is not a close mind. Often times the activist scientific community - those with a political agenda have a big problem with Creationism. Actually they have a big problem with God, capitalism, and a number of other issues. These are the people to avoid, because, there are very few among them that have a great scientific mind. Unfortunately they are also spiritually bankrupt at the same time, so say prayers for them. You will find that greatest minds in science are all wondering, awe-inspired, and God believing individuals. They are the ones with the open minds - the type of minds that can handle the abstraction of faith, and the realm of impossibility.
To: PatrickHenry
Oooo! A Festival of Anti-Darwin Harpies AND Rand-Haters all in a single thread. Anti-Science meets anti-reason.
To: cripplecreek
Neither did the Pope, and he said so several years ago.
14
posted on
02/03/2004 8:05:39 PM PST
by
JSteff
To: RJCogburn
15
posted on
02/03/2004 8:07:01 PM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: RJCogburn
I blame it on Gould and mushy crackers.
;)
To: RJCogburn
Naturalism posing as Science needs to be assaulted.
17
posted on
02/03/2004 8:40:10 PM PST
by
Ahban
To: RJCogburn
INTREP
To: cripplecreek
I don't believe in evolution, but am not threatened by having to learn it for biology classes. BOTH teach that we come from a common ancestor and all the BS about 'us vs. them' racism is just bull chips. My biology professor in undergraduate intro was a creationist, but he never got up on the soapbox about it.
19
posted on
02/03/2004 9:59:35 PM PST
by
cyborg
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-252 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson