I have not given equal time for atheists; so it's time I commented about them also. This will not be as passionate a commentary, because at least atheists are not trying to sabotage our educational system or threatening our progress as a species -- quite the contrary, actually.
There was one occasion, however, when I believe an atheist behaved almost as badly by stirring up unnecessary trouble in one school. A few years back there was an attempt to petition to change the words to the Pledge of Allegiance recited by kids in public schools. The fact is, the founders of this country were Christians, and nothing can change that fact. In addition, the overwhelming majority of people in this country probably believe in a supreme being, whether they be Christians, Muslims, or Jews; this was underscored by the fact that there was so much opposition to the petition. But what made me uncomfortable about that event was that, there were so many other more pressing issues in education, e.g., the fact that many teenagers could not pick out the US from a world map. Compared to issues like that, the whole “under God” fiasco to me was such a petty annoyance at best and a distraction at worst. But I feel that this was not typical of folks who are self-proclaimed atheists, an overwhelming majority of whom I believe are more far-seeing in their causes and beliefs – especially in issues such as poverty in the third world, justice for suppressed peoples, and saving ourselves from environmental collapse. (I wish I could say half as much for SUV-driving fundamentalists who dismiss “tree hugging”, or are determined to alienate America from the rest of the world, or even plant the occasional burning cross.)
So, as an educator who values civilized activities, I have no problems with self-proclaimed atheists. My only real concern about them is more philosophical, more personal – specifically the concern that they, not unlike the fundamentalists, could be denying themselves access to a bigger picture of truth.
The fact is, I used to be a self-proclaimed atheist; so I’m familiar with all the arguments. If God is so perfect and needs nothing, why did he feel the need to create us? If God is such a loving entity, how could he allow all these bad things happen? If God is so good, how could his creations do such evil things? Why does God make it impossible for us to scientifically prove his existence? And then there are the critiques on gaps or holes in holy Scripture, including inconsistencies in the gospel stories of Jesus, etc. etc. I would later find out that these questions come from a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which often comes from a refusal to step inside the shoes of a Christian. (Ironically, I get the same feeling when a creationist asks silly questions against evolution – questions that obviously come from a lack of understanding of scientific principles.) I mean, these are all very good questions, but I think it would do well for the asker of such questions to actually sincerely pursue the answers to such questions by talking to people of faith – for, certainly one cannot turn to science for that.
Now, I have always valued science and the body of knowledge that it has given to humanity, as well as the advancement of our quality of life that it has provided; indeed I will always find unspeakable beauty in how nature works – an appreciation that is all the more heightened by the understanding provided by the sciences. However, I suppose that at some point, I had to admit to myself that my five senses – or, by extension, physical measurements – could not possibly be enough to determine the absolute truth behind every aspect of my existence. One of the few Shakespearean quotes that have stuck to me is Hamlet’s assertion to his friend Horatio that “There are more things in heaven and earth, …, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” I find it disconcerting that atheists accept the findings of science that we are nothing particularly special in this universe, and at the same time believe that humans are capable of omniscience. I do believe that our five senses – through the unblinking eye of science – is capable of great insight; in fact I have always thought of science as one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity – actually an extension of the free will that we have been given. But when I consider the insignificance of man – whether in my spiritual musings of his nothingness compared to God or in my intellectual musings of his being such a small part of the diversity of nature’s workings – at some point it just became difficult for me to believe that there is nothing beyond what our senses provide.
One just needs to look to the arts – the indescribable beauty of a painting, the experience of listening to a great symphony, or the intellectual joy from a poem or a novel – where does all that come from? How could these just be consequent urges from our survival instincts? What about the heroism and selfless sacrifice that we have witnessed in great figures of history as well as in the ordinary people who ran the Underground Railroads of history – helping pre-Civil War slaves as well as Nazi-era Jews. I personally could not dismiss these as a simple consequence of our instinct to keep the human species going, any more than I could dismiss my love for my wife and kids as an unconscious impulse to perpetuate my particular genes.
The point is, we humans are so much MORE than the sum or our parts. Since I could not deny this fact, neither could I deny that the natural universe is so much more than the one that we humans could perceive.
Just how this crossed over to Roman Catholicism – that’s another story.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Another reason why creationists just don't get it : LAWYERS.
I just had a light bulb moment, and want to put it out there as a hypothesis. This is with regards to creationists (and that's what they are, whether they are proponents of "intelligent design" or whatever other label they come up with next), who are trying to barge into our public school system, and why they keep misunderstanding the concept of a scientific "theory".
Like most people, you would probably think of a "theory" as a guess that still deserves to be proven or tested. If so, then you would be absolutely correct! What most people do not realize is that, even after after a theory is proven or tested to be a good explanation of how something in nature works, even after we've been able to use the theory to make technological advances and make predictions of other things -- even after all that, scientists continue to call it a "theory". Now there are exceptions to this; you're probably familiar with scientific "laws": law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. etc., but don't let the word fool you: these "laws" are still theories. It's just that these theories have proven reliable and accurate for so long that they are sometimes elevated above all others -- but they are all theories.
So, why continue calling it a theory if it has worked so well? Because we want to keep it still open for testing and proving (or disproving). It is this openness that has allowed science to progress to the level of understanding that we have today. As a result, many theories have fallen by the wayside after failing the unblinking scrutiny of physical measurements in scientific experimentation. One example is the theory of "spontaneous generation" in which we used to think that infections were spontaneously generated within our bodies; this theory had to be abandoned once we discovered germs and other micro-organisms that carry disease. If it had not been open for debate, we might not have developed antibiotics or vaccines; instead we would continue bleeding people to release bad "humours".
Continuing to keep a theory open for testing made it possible for Einstein and many other scientists to question even Newton's immortal "laws". As a result, we were able to discover that Newton's laws are actually just a small part of a bigger picture. Meanwhile, Einstein's new theories have been confirmed by numerous experiments and are therefore now widely accepted as well.
Now, the principle of biological evolution is another example of one such scientific "theory". Even though it has been confirmed, proven, and supported by experiments; has successfully predicted new discoveries; and has made possible many advancements in medicine, medical health care, and agriculture which have developed our quality of life as a species -- even after all that, it is still referred to as a "theory". It's just that no experiment has been able to support a better, alternative theory.
Now, let us contrast this concept of scientific "theory" with a legal theory -- for example, the theory regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unlike a scientific theory, this is a kind of theory that must be proven absolutely correct -- correct beyond a "reasonable doubt". This is understandable: When it comes to people's lives, you cannot afford a theory that is open for testing. The whole idea of reasonable doubt is that if there are any gaps in a theory, then the theory cannot be believed. A scientific theory, on the other hand, even after multiple proofs and confirmation by experiment, welcomes the possibility of gaps.
The point is: lawyers may have a difficult time accepting or understanding the nature of scientific theories. If they see any holes or gaps in a scientific theory, their instinct would be to dismiss all the proofs and achievements of this theory and focus on getting some minimal "reasonable doubt" enough to discredit the theory altogether. If they find at least one person with an advanced degree that has criticisms against a theory, they would even consider the theory to be "controversial".
Why am I even talking about lawyers? Well, this is the light bulb moment: The people pushing the ID movement are lawyers. The founder, Phillip Johnson, is a lawyer. The Thomas More Law Center which funds the publication of ID textbooks is a group of lawyers. None of these people are even scientists.
This explains a lot. Consider:
(1) Lawyers are also accustomed to a bi-modal form of thinking: guilty or not guilty, ruling against or in favor of, and so on. If a theory posits that the defendant is guilty, and this theory is dismissed, then there is only one other theory that can be considered: innocent. By contrast, in science, the failure of a scientific theory in an experimental test does not automatically "prove" another alternative theory: that alternative theory must also be tested and proven first! Instead, the sole argument that proponents of "intelligent design" present is this: since evolution has gaps that are unexplained, then ID must be a suitable alternative theory. But when you ask them for experimental tests or proof of this alternative theory, they have nothing. That is why ID can not be taken seriously by the scientific community. (In fact, ID will never have anything because the theory can not even be tested!) Apparently, to these lawyers, evolution is the one "on trial", and so ID does not have the "burden of proof"!
(2) Another note: while scientists think inductively -- conclusion arrived after presented with much evidence -- lawyers tend to think deductively: they start with a conclusion and gather much evidence to support it). Well, creationists always start with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story and, according to their "Wedge" manifesto, are currently trying to find "scientists" who can gather the physical evidence. This is another reason why most scientists can not take ID seriously.
Bottom line: ID is not science; it is a bunch of lawyers making a negative argument.
Like most people, you would probably think of a "theory" as a guess that still deserves to be proven or tested. If so, then you would be absolutely correct! What most people do not realize is that, even after after a theory is proven or tested to be a good explanation of how something in nature works, even after we've been able to use the theory to make technological advances and make predictions of other things -- even after all that, scientists continue to call it a "theory". Now there are exceptions to this; you're probably familiar with scientific "laws": law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, etc. etc., but don't let the word fool you: these "laws" are still theories. It's just that these theories have proven reliable and accurate for so long that they are sometimes elevated above all others -- but they are all theories.
So, why continue calling it a theory if it has worked so well? Because we want to keep it still open for testing and proving (or disproving). It is this openness that has allowed science to progress to the level of understanding that we have today. As a result, many theories have fallen by the wayside after failing the unblinking scrutiny of physical measurements in scientific experimentation. One example is the theory of "spontaneous generation" in which we used to think that infections were spontaneously generated within our bodies; this theory had to be abandoned once we discovered germs and other micro-organisms that carry disease. If it had not been open for debate, we might not have developed antibiotics or vaccines; instead we would continue bleeding people to release bad "humours".
Continuing to keep a theory open for testing made it possible for Einstein and many other scientists to question even Newton's immortal "laws". As a result, we were able to discover that Newton's laws are actually just a small part of a bigger picture. Meanwhile, Einstein's new theories have been confirmed by numerous experiments and are therefore now widely accepted as well.
Now, the principle of biological evolution is another example of one such scientific "theory". Even though it has been confirmed, proven, and supported by experiments; has successfully predicted new discoveries; and has made possible many advancements in medicine, medical health care, and agriculture which have developed our quality of life as a species -- even after all that, it is still referred to as a "theory". It's just that no experiment has been able to support a better, alternative theory.
Now, let us contrast this concept of scientific "theory" with a legal theory -- for example, the theory regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unlike a scientific theory, this is a kind of theory that must be proven absolutely correct -- correct beyond a "reasonable doubt". This is understandable: When it comes to people's lives, you cannot afford a theory that is open for testing. The whole idea of reasonable doubt is that if there are any gaps in a theory, then the theory cannot be believed. A scientific theory, on the other hand, even after multiple proofs and confirmation by experiment, welcomes the possibility of gaps.
The point is: lawyers may have a difficult time accepting or understanding the nature of scientific theories. If they see any holes or gaps in a scientific theory, their instinct would be to dismiss all the proofs and achievements of this theory and focus on getting some minimal "reasonable doubt" enough to discredit the theory altogether. If they find at least one person with an advanced degree that has criticisms against a theory, they would even consider the theory to be "controversial".
Why am I even talking about lawyers? Well, this is the light bulb moment: The people pushing the ID movement are lawyers. The founder, Phillip Johnson, is a lawyer. The Thomas More Law Center which funds the publication of ID textbooks is a group of lawyers. None of these people are even scientists.
This explains a lot. Consider:
(1) Lawyers are also accustomed to a bi-modal form of thinking: guilty or not guilty, ruling against or in favor of, and so on. If a theory posits that the defendant is guilty, and this theory is dismissed, then there is only one other theory that can be considered: innocent. By contrast, in science, the failure of a scientific theory in an experimental test does not automatically "prove" another alternative theory: that alternative theory must also be tested and proven first! Instead, the sole argument that proponents of "intelligent design" present is this: since evolution has gaps that are unexplained, then ID must be a suitable alternative theory. But when you ask them for experimental tests or proof of this alternative theory, they have nothing. That is why ID can not be taken seriously by the scientific community. (In fact, ID will never have anything because the theory can not even be tested!) Apparently, to these lawyers, evolution is the one "on trial", and so ID does not have the "burden of proof"!
(2) Another note: while scientists think inductively -- conclusion arrived after presented with much evidence -- lawyers tend to think deductively: they start with a conclusion and gather much evidence to support it). Well, creationists always start with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story and, according to their "Wedge" manifesto, are currently trying to find "scientists" who can gather the physical evidence. This is another reason why most scientists can not take ID seriously.
Bottom line: ID is not science; it is a bunch of lawyers making a negative argument.
Conservatives, liberals, bigots?
I would like to share one of the lessons I learned while I was a student, one that many might find interesting, regardless of their political leaning.
Those who have been an unfortunate victim of discrimination are usually quick to assert that the most prejudicial of people are usually those who have conservative political views, and that those who are more accomodating are usually those who have liberal political views. However, many of my conservative friends will be quick to cry foul and assert that they are most certainly not bigots. So the question is: Is bigotry a conservative trait?
Unfortunately, if one were to look at the history of bigotry in this country, conservative politicians have not had a very good track record compared to liberal politicians. And if I am to think back on my own experience while I was still a student living in the dorms, the openly racist people I have had the misfortune of encountering were also self-proclaimed conservatives.
In fact, it is because of such encounters that I decided to avoid the conservatives in the dorms by transferring to a "co-op" house. I'm talking about housemates who religiously recycle everything, are mostly vegetarians and/or eat only organic foods, or are very active in organizations like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. A lot of the women refused to shave or wear a bra, some of the folks were openly gay, some voted for Ralph Nader.... You get the picture. So, living with all these so-called "granolas", you're probably thinking I was treated with nothing but tolerance and understanding, right? Wrong. Imagine my surprise.
Of course, most of my housemates were the best people I ever lived with, and were indeed quite open and accomodating to me. I could say the same thing about almost all of my dorm-mates. But then there were those few who asserted to me that all Christians like me are hypocrites. What was disturbing to me is their tone: it was almost exactly the same tone as the very few dorm-mates who asserted to me that all racial minorities like me are inferior. Also, half of my ultra-feminist housemates would not even speak ONE word to me, after I had introduced myself as a devout Christian. It made me feel exactly the same way as I did with the right-wing dorm-mates who would not even look in my direction. One of my anti-Chrisitan housemates lamely offered that I was an "exception". Just like my racist dorm-mate who lamely complimented Asians to be "better" minorities.
I have often looked back on these experiences, thinking about how easy it is for us to try and over-simplify the people around us. It is so tempting to try and squeeze people into categories or labels. But then that is what a bigot does. But here's the really ironic question: Doesn't this include people who label others as "bigots"?
Those who have been an unfortunate victim of discrimination are usually quick to assert that the most prejudicial of people are usually those who have conservative political views, and that those who are more accomodating are usually those who have liberal political views. However, many of my conservative friends will be quick to cry foul and assert that they are most certainly not bigots. So the question is: Is bigotry a conservative trait?
Unfortunately, if one were to look at the history of bigotry in this country, conservative politicians have not had a very good track record compared to liberal politicians. And if I am to think back on my own experience while I was still a student living in the dorms, the openly racist people I have had the misfortune of encountering were also self-proclaimed conservatives.
In fact, it is because of such encounters that I decided to avoid the conservatives in the dorms by transferring to a "co-op" house. I'm talking about housemates who religiously recycle everything, are mostly vegetarians and/or eat only organic foods, or are very active in organizations like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. A lot of the women refused to shave or wear a bra, some of the folks were openly gay, some voted for Ralph Nader.... You get the picture. So, living with all these so-called "granolas", you're probably thinking I was treated with nothing but tolerance and understanding, right? Wrong. Imagine my surprise.
Of course, most of my housemates were the best people I ever lived with, and were indeed quite open and accomodating to me. I could say the same thing about almost all of my dorm-mates. But then there were those few who asserted to me that all Christians like me are hypocrites. What was disturbing to me is their tone: it was almost exactly the same tone as the very few dorm-mates who asserted to me that all racial minorities like me are inferior. Also, half of my ultra-feminist housemates would not even speak ONE word to me, after I had introduced myself as a devout Christian. It made me feel exactly the same way as I did with the right-wing dorm-mates who would not even look in my direction. One of my anti-Chrisitan housemates lamely offered that I was an "exception". Just like my racist dorm-mate who lamely complimented Asians to be "better" minorities.
I have often looked back on these experiences, thinking about how easy it is for us to try and over-simplify the people around us. It is so tempting to try and squeeze people into categories or labels. But then that is what a bigot does. But here's the really ironic question: Doesn't this include people who label others as "bigots"?
Opinion on the 21 drinking age
The August 12, 2007 edition of Parade asked readers what they thought of the drinking age (which was raised from 18 to 21 when I first entered college). The following were my responses.
Better parenting, not legislation, is the answer
By aagapud on 8/17/2007 1:10:AM
Just a few generations ago, there was no need for the 21 drinking age law because back then, more 18-year-olds were much more mature than they are today. This is clear from comments submitted by seniors. This is because of our agrarian past, coupled with adversities (e.g., the Great Depression and the World Wars.), in which heavier responsibilities were thrust upon them. The reason today's youth seem less mature is NOT because of lack of legislation, but because they have fewer responsibilities. Since there are fewer external stimuli, it is now up to the parents to sustain this sense of responsibility in our kids. Sadly, in general parents today are are way too accomodating. If this does not change, then no amount of stiff laws will ever help our kids to "grow up."
Fundamentalism, no lack of laws, is cause of teen drunkenness
By aagapud on 8/17/2007 12:39:AM
Compared to youths in other developed nations, Americans tend to be less mature when it comes to alcohol. But this is because Europeans, for example, grow up in an environment where wine is a normal part of life and therefore holds no special mystique. In America, generations of fundamentalist Bible thumping have branded alcohol as a kind of forbidden fruit. This, combined with the ready availability of alcohol, attracts rebellion in the youth. It's just another example of why fundamentalism has no place in a democratic society.
Better parenting, not legislation, is the answer
By aagapud on 8/17/2007 1:10:AM
Just a few generations ago, there was no need for the 21 drinking age law because back then, more 18-year-olds were much more mature than they are today. This is clear from comments submitted by seniors. This is because of our agrarian past, coupled with adversities (e.g., the Great Depression and the World Wars.), in which heavier responsibilities were thrust upon them. The reason today's youth seem less mature is NOT because of lack of legislation, but because they have fewer responsibilities. Since there are fewer external stimuli, it is now up to the parents to sustain this sense of responsibility in our kids. Sadly, in general parents today are are way too accomodating. If this does not change, then no amount of stiff laws will ever help our kids to "grow up."
Fundamentalism, no lack of laws, is cause of teen drunkenness
By aagapud on 8/17/2007 12:39:AM
Compared to youths in other developed nations, Americans tend to be less mature when it comes to alcohol. But this is because Europeans, for example, grow up in an environment where wine is a normal part of life and therefore holds no special mystique. In America, generations of fundamentalist Bible thumping have branded alcohol as a kind of forbidden fruit. This, combined with the ready availability of alcohol, attracts rebellion in the youth. It's just another example of why fundamentalism has no place in a democratic society.
Notes: NOVA's Judgment Day: I.D. on trial
This was a retelling of the dramatic legal suit filed in 2004 against the school board members of Dover, PA who had tried to insert “intelligent design” into the science curriculum. Here are just some of my impressions and reactions.
THE HYPOCRISY OF SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
I found it shocking (but not too surprising) how un-Christian these so-called Christians in Dover, PA can be – from making shameless death threats against other people (the plaintiffs AND the Judge), destroying school property, and lying under oath. Creationists were caught trying to get around the Constitution and circumventing Supreme Court rulings – and rather ineptly, as it turns out. While zeal can be a great thing, a lack of restraint can also make you forget the most basic teachings of your religion. If we let this happen, then we are no better than the “religious” people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Or, at best, we will look like damn fools.
LET THESE MORONS BUILD THEIR FANTASY WORLD...AND GO EXTINCT.
I feel so sorry for these people. In a time when Americans desperately need to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy, these idiots are handing out death sentences to their children. Unless these kids catch on to the errors of their parents (like that one reporter who fought with her dad), they will never have access to professional careers in medicine, agriculture, chemistry, or any field that requires a recognition of the validity of the biological sciences – not to mention science in general. So they will keep on fighting this ridiculous “war” while their children find themselves unable to find decent jobs in the real world. In turn, succeeding generations will be even less educated, and so on, caught in a downward spiral of ignorance. Already the show revealed signs of their pitiful lack of intellect, in their pathetic attempts to get away with perjury and rationalize such actions. So in the end, it is exactly their self-imposed, destructive ignorance that gives me comfort. These guys are correct about one thing: In the end, the truth indeed will prevail, and these deluded people will simply get left behind while the rest of humanity marches forward as it always has. Isn’t it ironic, that natural selection would be the very downfall of this moronic sub-species?
EMBARRASSING AMERICA WHILE THE WORLD WATCHES
It struck me that a descendant of Charles Darwin himself was present at the trial, watching along with the rest of the world – watching Americans make asses out of themselves. This was one rare moment when I felt ashamed to be associated with this country. While the rest of the world flies toward the future on the wings of science, they must be laughing at us Americans for being so backward and ignorant.
INTERESTING: INTELLECTUAL MODESTY OF SCIENCE
Another thing I found striking is a huge world of difference between creationists and scientists in terms of humility. While the scientists repeatedly admitted that there is so much that they do not know, the creationists strongly believed themselves to have all the answers, placing themselves as intellectually superior over science teachers, scientists, and of course the judge who ruled against the creationists. How anyone could get fooled by these pathetic losers is simply beyond me.
REFUSAL OF FUNDAMENTALISTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LINKS TO NATURE
I’m beginning to see a possible common thread in the attitudes of fundamentalists towards nature, and it is this: In general they seem determined to disavow any close link between humanity and the natural world. I have always felt it spiritually uplifting to realize our commonality with all life – life that God had created and called “good”. This concept is sickening to these fundamentalists, and frankly I will never understand why. I don’t know where they got the idea that acknowledging such intimate connection to other living things makes us less human, less rational, less moral, or less ethical, although I can guess that it might come from the ignorant notion that animals are all mindless and “savage”. Sadly, I think this might explain their refusal to support environmental conservation (even if their food supplies are threatened), and, more seriously, their refusal to acknowledge the possibility that humans could cause global warming. It would be consistent with their denial of our interconnectedness with the rest of nature. Ironically, it is recognition of this interconnectedness that underscores God’s charge that humans be responsible stewards of all creation, while turning a blind eye to the reality of human’s ecological footprint totally shirks this duty. One can only hope that there will never be enough of these idiots to tip the balance towards environmental collapse. It may be tempting to go ahead and let their ignorance destroy their part of the world, but our connectedness to them will mean destruction for everyone – this interconnectedness is actually the point.
SCHOOLS YOU SHOULD NOT SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO:
The episode mentioned the schools where these ID proponents are faculty members. If these institutions have any concern for their reputation, they would can these idiots:
• Lehigh University (Michael Behe)
• University of Warwick (Steve Fuller)
• University of Idaho (Scott A. Minnich)
• UC Berkley School of Law (Phillip Johnson – the founder of ID: a lawyer! He’s not even a freakin scientist!!)
THE GOOD NEWS:
The judge (who was appointed by conservatives) ruled against the creationists, and the citizens of Dover have successfully elected an entirely new school board, and not one member supports the introduction of ID in the science curriculum; basically ID has no more chance of infiltrating the school. So even though Pat Robertson has condemned Dover to eternal damnation, Dover High might actually be an OK place for science education, precisely because of this crucible they went through, and may end up producing young people who will continue advancing the human quality of life – a quality of life even the creationists probably could not live without.
THE HYPOCRISY OF SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
I found it shocking (but not too surprising) how un-Christian these so-called Christians in Dover, PA can be – from making shameless death threats against other people (the plaintiffs AND the Judge), destroying school property, and lying under oath. Creationists were caught trying to get around the Constitution and circumventing Supreme Court rulings – and rather ineptly, as it turns out. While zeal can be a great thing, a lack of restraint can also make you forget the most basic teachings of your religion. If we let this happen, then we are no better than the “religious” people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Or, at best, we will look like damn fools.
LET THESE MORONS BUILD THEIR FANTASY WORLD...AND GO EXTINCT.
I feel so sorry for these people. In a time when Americans desperately need to stay competitive in an increasingly global economy, these idiots are handing out death sentences to their children. Unless these kids catch on to the errors of their parents (like that one reporter who fought with her dad), they will never have access to professional careers in medicine, agriculture, chemistry, or any field that requires a recognition of the validity of the biological sciences – not to mention science in general. So they will keep on fighting this ridiculous “war” while their children find themselves unable to find decent jobs in the real world. In turn, succeeding generations will be even less educated, and so on, caught in a downward spiral of ignorance. Already the show revealed signs of their pitiful lack of intellect, in their pathetic attempts to get away with perjury and rationalize such actions. So in the end, it is exactly their self-imposed, destructive ignorance that gives me comfort. These guys are correct about one thing: In the end, the truth indeed will prevail, and these deluded people will simply get left behind while the rest of humanity marches forward as it always has. Isn’t it ironic, that natural selection would be the very downfall of this moronic sub-species?
EMBARRASSING AMERICA WHILE THE WORLD WATCHES
It struck me that a descendant of Charles Darwin himself was present at the trial, watching along with the rest of the world – watching Americans make asses out of themselves. This was one rare moment when I felt ashamed to be associated with this country. While the rest of the world flies toward the future on the wings of science, they must be laughing at us Americans for being so backward and ignorant.
INTERESTING: INTELLECTUAL MODESTY OF SCIENCE
Another thing I found striking is a huge world of difference between creationists and scientists in terms of humility. While the scientists repeatedly admitted that there is so much that they do not know, the creationists strongly believed themselves to have all the answers, placing themselves as intellectually superior over science teachers, scientists, and of course the judge who ruled against the creationists. How anyone could get fooled by these pathetic losers is simply beyond me.
REFUSAL OF FUNDAMENTALISTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LINKS TO NATURE
I’m beginning to see a possible common thread in the attitudes of fundamentalists towards nature, and it is this: In general they seem determined to disavow any close link between humanity and the natural world. I have always felt it spiritually uplifting to realize our commonality with all life – life that God had created and called “good”. This concept is sickening to these fundamentalists, and frankly I will never understand why. I don’t know where they got the idea that acknowledging such intimate connection to other living things makes us less human, less rational, less moral, or less ethical, although I can guess that it might come from the ignorant notion that animals are all mindless and “savage”. Sadly, I think this might explain their refusal to support environmental conservation (even if their food supplies are threatened), and, more seriously, their refusal to acknowledge the possibility that humans could cause global warming. It would be consistent with their denial of our interconnectedness with the rest of nature. Ironically, it is recognition of this interconnectedness that underscores God’s charge that humans be responsible stewards of all creation, while turning a blind eye to the reality of human’s ecological footprint totally shirks this duty. One can only hope that there will never be enough of these idiots to tip the balance towards environmental collapse. It may be tempting to go ahead and let their ignorance destroy their part of the world, but our connectedness to them will mean destruction for everyone – this interconnectedness is actually the point.
SCHOOLS YOU SHOULD NOT SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO:
The episode mentioned the schools where these ID proponents are faculty members. If these institutions have any concern for their reputation, they would can these idiots:
• Lehigh University (Michael Behe)
• University of Warwick (Steve Fuller)
• University of Idaho (Scott A. Minnich)
• UC Berkley School of Law (Phillip Johnson – the founder of ID: a lawyer! He’s not even a freakin scientist!!)
THE GOOD NEWS:
The judge (who was appointed by conservatives) ruled against the creationists, and the citizens of Dover have successfully elected an entirely new school board, and not one member supports the introduction of ID in the science curriculum; basically ID has no more chance of infiltrating the school. So even though Pat Robertson has condemned Dover to eternal damnation, Dover High might actually be an OK place for science education, precisely because of this crucible they went through, and may end up producing young people who will continue advancing the human quality of life – a quality of life even the creationists probably could not live without.
My single pet peeve
I am normally very centrist or neutral over many issues. But at my very core I am an educator, and my heart literally breaks at the sight of ignorance being actively spread by ignorant people. Also at my very core, I love this great country. Christ himself said that more is expected from those who receive more blessings. Because I believe this country to be especially blessed, I expect more from her citizens. I expect the citizens of this country to be less ignorant and more educated.
So imagine my distress to witness campaigns actively teaching Americans to reject mainstream scientific principles, like biological evolution. The perpetrators are influencing school boards, publishing and selling textbooks, and building million-dollar museums -- all to hawk their own version of "science". Ironically, these very same people are probably benefiting from genetic science -- it's only the cornerstone of evolution, hello! The achievements of genetics have armed us with abilities we now take for granted, such as creating vaccines to fight disease and gene therapy for cancer and other illnesses. These same people would also probably trust DNA testing that confirms the guilt or innocence of a convict, the identity of a corpse, or the paternity of a child. And then they turn around and reject DNA tests that routinely give proof of the evolution of species. But that's the point: they are ignorant.And yet they are crafty enough to use our greatest vulnerability: our religiosity. As a Christian, I am especially offended by this. They make us believe that their campaign is a religious one, but it is NOT. They try to portray science as a "threat" to our religion, but a great majority of scientists are members of mainstream religions, and many great religious writers are also prominent scientists. I myself recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, from memory, from the heart. No, this is a POLITICAL agenda, and they are the threat. It's about ignorant people who are USING our religious sentiments to actively force their own narrow views and opinions upon others. And, because of the poor state of science education in our public schools, many Americans are easily duped into embracing quackery -- especially our children! (How in God's name can any decent parent allow this death sentence upon their future?!)
So what do we do? As an educator, I know what I must do, and my work will probably never be done. College students, as students of higher education, I say have a moral responsibility to champion the achievements of centuries of learning and discovery, achievements that are now helping them to improve the quality of their life and the lives of others. As parents, I say we are bound to provide our children the kind of education that will help them succeed in the real world. As Americans, I say we have a civic duty to SPEAK OUT against anything that threatens our pursuit of happiness, and that includes ignorance.
Want to learn more?
Read "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
Read American Physical Society News articles: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/backpage.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/creationmuseum.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/study.cfm
So imagine my distress to witness campaigns actively teaching Americans to reject mainstream scientific principles, like biological evolution. The perpetrators are influencing school boards, publishing and selling textbooks, and building million-dollar museums -- all to hawk their own version of "science". Ironically, these very same people are probably benefiting from genetic science -- it's only the cornerstone of evolution, hello! The achievements of genetics have armed us with abilities we now take for granted, such as creating vaccines to fight disease and gene therapy for cancer and other illnesses. These same people would also probably trust DNA testing that confirms the guilt or innocence of a convict, the identity of a corpse, or the paternity of a child. And then they turn around and reject DNA tests that routinely give proof of the evolution of species. But that's the point: they are ignorant.And yet they are crafty enough to use our greatest vulnerability: our religiosity. As a Christian, I am especially offended by this. They make us believe that their campaign is a religious one, but it is NOT. They try to portray science as a "threat" to our religion, but a great majority of scientists are members of mainstream religions, and many great religious writers are also prominent scientists. I myself recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, from memory, from the heart. No, this is a POLITICAL agenda, and they are the threat. It's about ignorant people who are USING our religious sentiments to actively force their own narrow views and opinions upon others. And, because of the poor state of science education in our public schools, many Americans are easily duped into embracing quackery -- especially our children! (How in God's name can any decent parent allow this death sentence upon their future?!)
So what do we do? As an educator, I know what I must do, and my work will probably never be done. College students, as students of higher education, I say have a moral responsibility to champion the achievements of centuries of learning and discovery, achievements that are now helping them to improve the quality of their life and the lives of others. As parents, I say we are bound to provide our children the kind of education that will help them succeed in the real world. As Americans, I say we have a civic duty to SPEAK OUT against anything that threatens our pursuit of happiness, and that includes ignorance.
Want to learn more?
Read "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393061639
Read American Physical Society News articles: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/backpage.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/creationmuseum.cfm
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/study.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
