In article <1117650725.867871.275560@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > Intervention Magazine
> > Religion Instead Of Science
> > May 30, 2005
> > Antievolution ideologues once again infiltrate the Kansas
> > school board to censor science and impose religious
> > creationism on public schools.
> > By Frederick Sweet
> >
> > "Kansas Begins Hearings on Diluting Teaching of Evolution,"
> > announces the May 5, 2005, New York Times headline. The
> > antievolution hearings were in Topeka, Kansas.
> >
> > "In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here
> > as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a
> > parade of Ph.D.s testified today about the flaws they find
> > in Darwin's theory of evolution, transforming a small
> > auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial
> > questions in education and politics: How to teach about the
> > origin of life?
> >
> > "For Kansas, the debate is déjà vu: the last time the state
> > standards were under review, in 1999, conservatives on the
> > school board ignored their expert panel and deleted
> > virtually any reference to evolution. But they were ousted
> > in the next election and their changes were undone.
> >
> > "Antievolution forces quietly regained the seats over the
> > next few years, attacking fellow Republicans as atheists."
> >
> > The eight proponents of intelligent design (a.k.a.
> > creationism) were outnumbered on the 26-member committee
> > that is writing new standards for science education in its
> > public schools. Because in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
> > in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism in public
> > school classrooms is prohibited, today's creationists
> > substitute the more scientific sounding "intelligent
> > design." They also use scientific words to camouflage this
> > version of creationism. Thus the Kansas state board's 6-to-4
> > conservative majority set up the showcase hearings in Topeka
> > to highlight their own suggestions for using "intelligent
> > design" to teach science in public schools.
> >
> > The Times article concludes, "'These people are going to
> > obfuscate about these definitions,' complained Jack Krebs,
> > vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for
> > Science, whose members, wearing 'I sup****t strong science
> > education' buttons, filled many of the 180 auditorium seats
> > not taken by journalists from as far away as France. 'They
> > have created a straw man. They are trying to make science
> > stand for atheism, so they can fight atheism'."
> >
> > Ideologues Aim To Censor Science
> >
> > The American Heritage Dictionary defines creationism as a
> > theological position for which: "the account of the creation
> > of the universe given at the beginning of the Bible is
> > literally true." The Dictionary defines evolution as a
> > scientific: ". . . theory that groups of organisms change
> > with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural
> > selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and
> > physiologically from their ancestors." Clearly, creationism
> > is a religious belief while evolution is a scientific theory.
> >
> > Although the school officials in Kansas had been elected to
> > provide its state's children with high quality public
> > education, the radical conservatives among them are trying
> > to force creationism into the science curriculum. They also
> > aim to remove evolution from science education. These crimes
> > against science education in public schools are part and
> > parcel of today's "conservative" political agenda for America.
> >
> > The hypocritical irony is that the truly conservative thing
> > to do would be to leave public schools alone. Who can forget
> > that icon of political conservatism, president Ronald Reagan
> > who had promised to "get the government off the backs of the
> > people?" And yet today's radical ideologues, calling
> > themselves "true" conservatives, aim to pass laws that
> > forbid teaching the science of evolution in public schools
> > and insist on teaching religious creationism instead.
> > Indeed, these radicals charge any Republican with atheism
> > who refuses to go along with their censor****p of science.
> >
> > "Tripping" Over Evolution
> >
> > Several months ago, after my commentaries on evolution
> > versus creationism were posted by Intervention Magazine, I
> > had received scores of emails thanking me. But a few email
> > writers pleaded with me to give creationism a chance. Their
> > argument was that to be fair and balanced all opposing
> > theories needed to be considered in an academic debate on
> > the origin of life on earth. However, as a practicing
> > scientist, my answer had to be "no."
> >
> > I can't waste my time on creationism. That's because it's
> > simply religious dogma having nothing to do with science.
> > Mine is neither a contrary nor an opposing position, but
> > rather it is based on practical reality. In my scientific
> > research, our laboratory experiments often "trip" over
> > evolution. But the only place where I ever naturally
> > encounter creationism is in Genesis from the Old Testament.
> >
> > By "tripping over evolution" I mean that our recent
> > scientific experiments had once again shown that man is
> > closely related to monkeys genetically (but not to rodents
> > and herbivores). [See, Homology of primate DNA fragments for
> > estrous-associated oviductal glycoprotein] Based on our
> > findings, man and monkeys must have had a common ancestor at
> > some point in their evolutionary development. Creationists
> > don't want to know this. However, in today's science, our
> > experimental results are no more startling than
> > gravitational force in physics or planetary motion in
> > astronomy. Like gravity and planetary motion, modern science
> > takes evolution for granted. That's why evolution must be
> > taught as science in public schools and not be replaced by
> > or compared with religious creationism -- or creationism
> > dressed in intelligent design clothing.
> >
> > Ideological demagogues mislead the public when they
> > proclaim, "evolution is merely a theory and not a fact."
> > What is a theory? No doubt they know that based on the germ
> > theory penicillin is given for pneumonia. This theory
> > describes bacteria called pneumococci that produce lung
> > infections (another theoretical word). The bacteria are
> > killed by penicillin. Each day, physicians save the lives of
> > people infected with bacterial pneumonia by applying the
> > germ theory. In this sense, the theory of evolution is every
> > bit as real and factual as is the germ theory. Evolution is
> > about biological reality. By contrast, creationism is a
> > religious belief that has nothing at all to do with science
> > -- as recognized and accurately defined in the American
> > Heritage Dictionary.
> >
> > The antievolution zealotry of religious conservatives on the
> > Kansas public school board neither serves God nor science.
> > By savaging public education, these ideologues serve a very
> > narrow political agenda driven by a fanaticism that rivals
> > that of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Just like their violent
> > Muslim brethren, the antievolution fanatics in Kansas don't
> > care who their radical actions hurt.
> >
> > In a perfect world, creationists would be cloister in
> > monasteries and spend their days praying to God for making
> > Darwin and evolution go away. Instead, they get themselves
> > elected to school boards and then subvert America's public
> > education system. If there is justice in our universe, then
> > surely God will punish them for the harm that they do.
> >
> > To join a discussion on this article, please go to our
> > forum. Register, click General Discussion, and find the
> > desired discussion.
> >
> > Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in
> > Obstetrics and Gynecology at Wa****ngton University School of
> > Medicine in St. Louis. You can email your comments to
> > mailto:Fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Wednesday, June 1, 2005
> > http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/
> >
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1091
> >
>
> Although Sweet tries to hide his intent with a lot of scientific
> language, political rhetoric, and outright mistatements, his
> anti-religion agenda is manifest.
>
> Beginning with the title - why title the piece "Religion instead of
> Science" unless you are asserting a conflict between the two? There
> isn't any such conflict, but the title would imply there is.
>
> If the title had been 'Creationism instead of Science' or even
> 'Ideology instead of Science', then the issue would have been stated
> accurately. But such titles wouldn't suit Sweet's intentions.
>
> Why use an ideological stance like creationism to launch another
> 'religion vs. science' war cry? It should be clear to anyone,
> certainly one as intelligent as Sweet, that creationism is not
> *inherently* a "religious" position at all, because many religious
> people don't hold to it. Yet from the tone of the article, one would
> conclude that there is something about religiosity itself that makes
> these people creationists.
>
> The article calls creationism a "theological position", implying that
> there is some actual theological basis for it and again emphasizing the
> religious tie-in. He implies this is a dictionary definition. Well,
> maybe Sweet's dictionary really says this. However, my edition of the
> same dictionary calls creationism a *belief*. Now a belief could be
> religious, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, many beliefs are
> non-religious or even anti-religious. Clearly, using 'belief' rather
> than 'theological position' would weaken the author's unstated
> intention.
>
> Is Sweet misquoting? If he is using the same edition that I did, he
> is. Even if he isn't, he should have indicated that identifying
> creationism as a "theological position" is controversial.
I think that if you went to the band of believers Sweet is
specifically attacking here, and tried telling them that there
is no conflict between religion and science, that creationism
is not a religious position, that an inerrantist and literalist
view of scriptures, which is the wellspring of the creationist
backlash, is not a theological position -- well, I suspect
they'd argue with you more vehemently than Sweet argues here.
I totally agree that zealous unwavering fundamentalism is
in no way representative of all religious thought, belief and
practice, far from it. Thank Whomever for that. But I also think
that is exactly that small unbending subset that Sweet is going after;
I don't see that his remarks as having any relevance
to the everyday Episcopalian or Catholic -- or Unitarian
or Buddhist.
-- cary
|
