The difference, and strength, of science as opposed to other what we have decided to loosely call "belief systems" is that it is self-correctable, self-correcting, and what's more, able to acknowledge that going in. There's a thread somewhere where Pete Hanlin decries all this "teaching" of "knowledge", and wishes schools would just stick to the stuff we know, like planets and stuff, instead of all this evolution and things that no one can really prove, since we can't go back in time eleventy skillion years, but we can sure tell that planets move.Originally Posted by drk
This is a profound shift in the religious mindset. Not so very long ago, the position of The Church was that the Earth was the center of the universe, and anything else was heresy. A few intelligent people looked at the evidence, despite the Ptolemy's well-established idea of how it was put together, and came up with a very different--and correct--interpretation of the facts.
Skipping over the rest of the history lesson, five centuries later, we have the deeply religious folk who would have opposed that exact discovery on purely religious grounds now singling it out as a shining example of scientific knowledge and one of the few scientific things we should teach children. I'll leave you to draw the line between this and the current discussion.
You certainly seem driven to tell me what I am--first I'm an existentialist, then a humanist, now I'm a naturalist. Here I thought I was a cynic who didn't know when to shut up. ;)Originally Posted by drk
What's funny, and this a point I keep coming back to which no one's yet satisfactorily explained to me--if so very many scientists have "problems" with evolution, how come I've never heard of any other than "Miss Cleo" Behe? An answer without including the phrases "liberal media" or "socialist professors" would be helpful. When you have a global resource like the Internet, it's hard to claim censorship.
If you're going to force anyone who's got a variously translated Book of Genesis in their holy book to believe anything (setting aside the serious problem I have with forcing anyone to believe anything), it would, of course, be full-on Creationism: The whole ball of wax in six days, six thousand-year-old planet and all. Anyone else, very simply, is a hypocrite. In fact, we should round people up and force them to believe, and kill those who don't! That'd be terrific, though not entirely original.Originally Posted by drk
About freedom from religion: you're right in that it's not an explicitly outlined "right" anywhere in the Constitution. However, trying to argue that since I don't want to know about your religion as it affects you is "tyrannical"--that, sir, is ridiculous.Originally Posted by drk
Why, then, must religion only be dragged into the discussion if it's evolution? Why not have science class about the rare burning bushes of Egypt? Meteorologists could be forced to spend a whole semester purely on raining toads--the causes, the historical precedents and how to wear our hair to discourage God from doing it again (hint: Like Pat Robertson). The civics of slavery? Animal sacrifice as it pleases the Lord? We could even encourage kids to rat out teachers that go off-curriculum for thirty pieces of silver. Oh, wait. They're already doing that.
The very idea of teaching certain (ie. Judeo-Christian) religious ideas in public schools, in a nation pledged to honor religious freedom, is what's tyrannical. Wouldn't you howl if your kids had a 6-week unit on Satanism? Under whose authority could you keep out Pastafarianism? In a discussion with an OD a year or so ago, he asked me what I thought about "Under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance. I asked him if he thought it'd be okay if it was "Under Buddha", or "Under Allah". He didn't like the idea very much, and still tried to argue the point of "Well, 'God' can be a generic term." If that's your aim, then first off, you'll have to make sure the passage is written "under god", not "under God", otherwise you'll offend followers of multitheistic religions, like Hindus, who have several hundred million gods. You see what a can of worms you open when you try to bring it into the public sphere?
Here, I'll invent a religion: To ignore all other religions. Other than that, there are no requirements, strictures, or guidelines to follow. Now, forcing any adherents of this new faith to learn religious teachings is specifically against my religion. And so now, the free exercise of this faith is being prohibited. To what end?
Please, please, please please provide me with ONE "near-fatal flaw". Please. You see, unlike religious thinkers, I find things that make me question my "beliefs" and what I think I know help me understand more of what I think and why I think so, and--gasp!--sometimes change my mind. I haven't seen a single bit of evidence to make me question evolution yet, so I'd invite anything and everything you can supply me with. Remember, science doesn't purport to know everything--that's your "side"--it just gives us the best explanation of what everything is so far.Originally Posted by drk
Bookmarks