Posted on 10/17/2001 5:24:59 AM PDT by ThinkPlease
I was rather disappointed in the factual mistakes in the article as well. Sputnik, for example, was launched in 1957, not 1945. And it's Ted Olson, not Tom Olson. A few minutes of fact checking might have saved them a few errors.
Here's what's the NCSE thinks of their comparisons:
To compare an act of that resulted in so many deaths with a TV series is outrageous. It does show, however, how low the ICR are prepared to go in their desparate attempts to link 'Darwinism' with any possible kind of evil they can.
Loonies.
If you want to get up to date, check out Access Research Network
It is hard to imagine the average modern student sitting through a series controlled by nineteen fifties “gee whiz” scientism.
Sadly, Public Television which often imitates television evangelists right down to the pledge drives still does not get it right. Gantry was never dull.
America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement called Darwinists.
Deranged creationists are so totally detached from reality that they can't see the similarity between themselves and the Taliban. Indeed, the only difference between the fools at ICR and the Taliban is that the latter whackos have political power, and are -- for now -- free to kill those who don't share their insane worldview. But if the ICR crowd had the chance, does anyone doubt that they'd behave more or less the same?
Idealistically, I would hope not. I did not want to make the same parallels that you just did, merely because I felt I was stooping to their level to do so. My hopes are that they would not stoop thus, simply because I have at least some hope for fundamentalist Christianity.
My wife is joining my church (Roman Catholic) and I am attending classes with her as moral support. The sister who spoke last night pointed out one of the main differences between the Catholic church and some Protestant churches was in their interpretation of the Bible. The Catholics see the Bible as a message from God -- it cannot be taken literally when it comes to history or science. Many Protestants see the Bible as literal historically and scientifically -- even though such views are untenable, to say the least.
The above article strikes me as a desperate cry for attention from a scientifically illiterate perspective. When it comes to scientific understanding most fundamentalist Protestant Christians are indistinguishable from fundamentalist Moslems -- the only difference being the latter are willing to slaughter people to get their point across, whereas the former would simply like to outlaw anything which might contradict orthodoxy.
That's not much of a difference. How do you think the laws would be enforced, if evolution and other science were outlawed here in the West? To me, the only difference is that one group of whackos (Islamic fundamentalism) is in already power, and the other (our own, home-grown young earth creationism) isn't -- yet. Like you, I hope that the Christian form of fundamentalism, when in power, would be more benign than the Islamic variety. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.
My comment is that science isn't decided by majority rule. If the creationists and IDers have alternate theories, they should publish them in peer reviewed biological science journals. They don't, because their ideas don't add up, and certainly don't supplant evolution.
Hey, stop that. Don't you know the Taliban is a faith-based organization, too? ....
Ooooops!
What evidence do you have for Protestants trying to outlaw anything that contradicts their orthodoxy? And no, I'm not a fundamentalist Protestant.
If you're referring to the decision of the Kansas state school board, there was no "outlawing" of anything there. Their decision was to remove the requirement for testing students for knowledge of macroevolution. It did not outlaw teaching anything. (It did not outlaw anything, for that matter.)
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The only differences (in principle) among the different fundamentalist movements are: 1) the deity, 2) the prophet, 3) the scripture, and occasionally 4) the language. Everything else is window dressing.
As for the Christian variety being more benign, the historical evidence doesn't bode well: The Spanish Inquisition, hanging of Witches in Salem, MA, and most recently, the murderous behavior of the Christian Falangist militia in Lebanon are not exactly ringing examples of religious tolerance and restraint.
I'm REALLY, REALLY tired of Christian bashers' use of the "hanging of the Witches in Salem" as an example of Christian violence and intolerance.
The witch trials were conducted, and the sentences executed, by the SECULAR authorities.
By contrast, it was the RELIGIOUS authorities who put a STOP to the witch hysteria.
The hysteria was fomented primarily by a group of teen-aged girls. And we know how bizarre they can be.
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.