Posted on 10/24/2009 4:02:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.
Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”
Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Then I ask why Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science if he's a religious figure. I haven't received an answer yet.
In other (non) news: Astronomy profs revel in keeping Astrology out of the curriculum; Physiology profs rejoice in keeping Phrenology out; Physicists celebrate keeping Geocentrists out; and Mathematicians are positively giddy about forestalling those who insist 2 + 2 = e.
It was always less about ideology than about the power to decide which ideology would be acceptable.
As Mr. Orwell had the character O’Brien state,
“The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”.
LOL!
Keep religion out of the science class. That goes bor both sides.
Or just teach both honestly, and let the chips fall where they may.
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Drawing distinctions between that which the human mind decides is “supernatural” and that which the human mind decides is not super-natural is a task undertaken by fallible humans for their own purposes. We find it a convenient and generally useful exercise in reasoning from our own observations, but have learned over time that many phenomena formerly thought super-natural because they were inexplicable, and also often frightening, partly or largely because inexplicable to our fallible and limited minds, have turned out to be not supernatural at all once we learned how to explain them. Common and obvious example of this shift from supernatural to natural are the eclipses of sun and moon.
‘“Stupid people” is more like it.’
Gee, thanks, TG.
“He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.”
Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.
As far as spirituality is concerned, but for evolution it's faithful obedience to ignorance.
You don't have to : you just don't insist on materialism either a priori or ab initio.
After all, you still have Occam's razor, ECREE, and "well, we just don't know for sure yet" as layered defenses against rampaging theism.
But since you brought it up -- what is your opinion regarding the final two sentences of Lewontin's quote ("It is not that...in the door" from post 3)?
Agree or disagree? Absolutely, or in the interim so as not to bias your judgment of specific experiments or constructs?
Cheers!
A sarcastic case could be made that the later scientists wanted to get some of the credit for their *own* pet theories, too; and not just from an all-consuming disinterested passion for the TRUTHTM. IN other words, everyone since Darwin has said, "No fair! *I* want to be the high priest!"
Or in a non-sarcastic vein:
Scientists remain very committed to their individual reputation and intellectual prowess, as well as the reputation of their field.
Consider (as examples of such) how Lister was excoriated for advocating cleanliness during surgery and between patients; and why the late Nobel laureate Dick Feynman left the National Academy of Sciences.
Incidentally, you might find the following quip by Leon Lederman (Physics Nobel, former head of Fermilab) interesting:
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."
Cheers!
Evolutionary science fills me with rage. Why do they keep digging up these damned fossils? Its amazing what they give out grant money for these days...meanwhile cancer is still not cured.
>>After all, you still have Occam’s razor, ECREE, and “well, we just don’t know for sure yet” as layered defenses against rampaging theism.<<
Well, my FRiend, that may all be well and good. But it is philosophy, not science. The point is that philosophy (and its offshoot, theology), belong in philosophy and the soft arts — not in hard science.
There is nothing that says that ID cannot be presented — it can, as a creation story, not as an operational mechanism in the naturalistic world of science.
Oh you said evos! I Thought you were calling us emos. I hate that gothic crap.
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.