One of the Stooges' lesser shorts:
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 Earth’s age and the relationship of various living organisms to one another. (Yes, if governments didn’t own and run schools, bad ideas might be better confined. But unfortunately that’s 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 who—nearly 80 years after the Scopes trial—are 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 capacity—to focus our minds, to choose to think. And it is just the creationists’ failure to do this—their refusal to seek and acknowledge the truth—that 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.
He is! I saw the movie. And he has a British accent, too.
Indeed. Inasmuch as equating belief in God with racism, n'est pas?
Moving on...
tcuoohjohn wrote: "evolve up is very easy to define...Better genetically adapted to your environment."
Phrased another way: "capable of adapting genetically to a changing environment". Which is an argument for Intelligent Design, of course, as are all Darwinian arguments. Quite the opposite of what tcuoojohn would have intended, if I have followed his/her argumentative position correctly.
Here's one for you to chew on, tcuoohjon: Wouldn't evolutionary theory be consistent with expecting that automobiles will one day exist without any "intelligent design" from man?
All of the essential elements exist in nature, do they not? There is iron, sulfur, rubber trees, sand, petroleum...surely one day a car will evolve on it's own. One capable of mining it's own petroleum and converting it to usable gasoline, yes? And of course, be capable of reproducing itself by "mating" with another car. If only we can be around for the billion or so years it will take for THAT evolution to occur, how exciting that will be!
Some cars, of course, will believe on faith that some greater being (M*n? - Cars who believe in M*n and hang out at the FreeRepublic of the future are not allowed to type his whole name, btw) designed them and the world they inhabit.
Will there be some cars who "Harrummpf!" at the thought of intelligent design of cars? Of course! "any car capable of rational thought will never believe in M*n!".
Moving on...
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 capacity—to focus our minds, to choose to think.
Why is it necessary to "survive and flourish"?
From whence comes the "requirement to exercise our freewill and rational capacity"?
Why are there physical laws?
From whence come these physical laws?
How does one measure, scientifically, the "why" of physical laws?
Can you prove to me the "why" of physical laws?
Do you believe a "why" of physical laws exists, in the absence of proof? If so, is this not faith?
If we were not deliberately created, then why are we here?
Why is there anything?
Why not nothing?
Oh, believe me: I am just beginning!
Indeed. Inasmuch as equating belief in God with racism, n'est pas?
Moving on...
tcuoohjohn wrote: "evolve up is very easy to define...Better genetically adapted to your environment."
Phrased another way: "capable of adapting genetically to a changing environment". Which is an argument for Intelligent Design, of course, as are all Darwinian arguments. Quite the opposite of what tcuoojohn would have intended, if I have followed his/her argumentative position correctly.
Here's one for you to chew on, tcuoohjon: Wouldn't evolutionary theory be consistent with expecting that automobiles will one day exist without any "intelligent design" from man?
All of the essential elements exist in nature, do they not? There is iron, sulfur, rubber trees, sand, petroleum...surely one day a car will evolve on it's own. One capable of mining it's own petroleum and converting it to usable gasoline, yes? And of course, be capable of reproducing itself by "mating" with another car. If only we can be around for the billion or so years it will take for THAT evolution to occur, how exciting that will be!
Some cars, of course, will believe on faith that some greater being (M*n? - Cars who believe in M*n and hang out at the FreeRepublic of the future are not allowed to type his whole name, btw) designed them and the world they inhabit.
Will there be some cars who "Harrummpf!" at the thought of intelligent design of cars? Of course! "any car capable of rational thought will never believe in M*n!".
Moving on...
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 capacity—to focus our minds, to choose to think.
Why is it necessary to "survive and flourish"?
From whence comes the "requirement to exercise our freewill and rational capacity"?
Why are there physical laws?
From whence come these physical laws?
How does one measure, scientifically, the "why" of physical laws?
Can you prove to me the "why" of physical laws?
Do you believe a "why" of physical laws exists, in the absence of proof? If so, is this not faith?
If we were not deliberately created, then why are we here?
Why is there anything?
Why not nothing?
Oh, believe me: I am just beginning!
Actually, there are very dire consequences to challenging evolution. Environmental policy is dependent upon a knowledge of the processes of natural selection: how different ecosystems evolved, and how different organisms are adapted to specific conditions. Without it, there is no way of setting rational conservation standards. Modern medicine, particularly epidemiology, is increasingly dependent upon a knowledge of evolution. Why have antibiotic-resisitant germs suddenly appeared? Because those specific strains which were more resilient to the effects of powerful modern antibiotics were the ones which survived, and passed their resilient traits to successive generations. Knowledge of natural selection is absolutely crucial in determining how to treat potentially deadly future plagues.
But most importantly of all, when evolution is trashed on these shores, it makes Americans the laughing stock of the rest of the world. And when people who claim to be "conservatives" are the ones doing the trashing, it further damages the image of conservatism in the eyes of the "educated". If America is to prove itself worth of the Enlightenment values on which it was founded, and if conservatism is truly committed to upholding those values, than we must defend evolution-and the values of science and reason in general-against those who would corrupt them.
One of the Stooges' lesser shorts:
When politics and science mix, it seems like the bad money always drives out the good. It seems to me that the only time intelligent things are funded by politicians is when there is some impressive object that can be built. Or when government steps aside and quits trying to ridicule basic research.
Of course there's micropolitics ruling foundations and universities.
I believe she was being sarcastic.
Virtue is its own reward. To twist Plato's maxim, the unvirtuous life is not worth living. The rational exercise of free will with dignity is its own reward. These facts can be deduced by the use of reason, and don't need faith.
If Hell did not exist, would you spend your life having wild orgiastic monkey sex with anything that moved and beating other people senseless for fun and profit?
According to Rand, creating a symphony or a skyscraper would be far more personally rewarding.
The fact that she had an affair with a younger, better looking man than her husband, causing great pain to her husband and her lover's wife, and eventually suffering great pain herself when she was dumped, means that she couldn't (or didn't) live up to her own ideals, but after all, she was only human.
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.