Letters to the Editor
-
Onward Christianist Soldiers!
News from the heartland or the homeland, or wherever it is that I live: The christianists have all sorts of kooky arguments against evolution. We never will convince tehm.
Via e-mail, my regional christianist broadcaster informs me that this is his best topic. He talks about it all the time because dimwits in his audience respond like crazy, because they love Creation, and hate Evolution. This is not a matter for discussion. They believe it is a matter of salvation.
We cannot convince these people. We need to marginalize them. We need to shame them into silence. Let them convince one another, over and over again, but get them out of the national debate.
-
Creationists know very well that "Intelligent Design" is a smokescreen for Creationism
A lie, if you will. Just like the next "tactic" -- an attempt, again, to lie about what they are doing.
They have no problem lying, it seems, to anyone about that. Including a judge in a court of law.
I've followed this "controversy" closely for thirty-some years, and that, as a religious agnostic, has become my strongest impression about Christians.
They're liars.
Is there nothing in their scriptures that recommends against that? Or is this yet again the kind of post-modern relativism that we've come to expect from religious conservatives?
-
In Louisiana in the early 1980's
At two different schools about 150 miles apart, my DH and I both had the same exact experience in 10th grade Biology class.
At the time, in Louisiana, teachers were required by state law to teach Creationism if they taught Evolution. So our high school Biology teachers - who were each good, God-fearing, church goin' women - stood up on the first day of class and read the first chapter of Genesis, then told us they'd fulfilled the letter of that law, now it was time to get down to the science of Biology, and they'd hear no more nonsense from anyone.
Let us hope that right now, those two ladies are still teaching. And Lord help us all because we need more women and men like that teaching our kids.
-
Just another conspiracy theory..
Evolution is a conspiracy concocted by scientists so they can get research money.
Or so IDers would argue.
In fact, there are problems with the theory of evolution, as there is with most theories. There are things that cannot be explained or predicted with the theory.
This does not mean at all that the theory is wrong or unscientific. I personally don't have a problem with people pointing out limitations in theories like evolution, climatology, moon shots, etc, as long as they are scientific.
People that want to teach ID as an alternate theory? Well, I don't have a big problem with that either. How long does it take? "Well, how did we get everything in the world the way it is? God did it".
Teaching the theory of ID should take about a 10 minute lesson, at most. I believe if the kids are just taught how to reason, they will mostly reach the right conclusion.
The last thing we should do is just tell kids that ID is wrong. It is not wrong. It is just unscientific, and has no use in figuring out the real world. Evolution does a better job of it.
But give me an evolutionary equation that, when you plug in the environment parameters and a suitable timeframe, you get a platypus. Then I'll be a true believer.
-
Two things
First, as has already been testified to in these letters, and to which I could add my own personal experiences, there are numerous brave teachers in the most benighted corners of our country. They work hard and risk themselves every day, and they are owed our gratitude.
Second, it has always amazed me how so many people in this land cannot reconcile religion and science. Again, it's been said earlier - science is about observation, hypothesis, and rigorous critical quantitative testing, while religion is about belief. Here's where they can coexist, if you wish to think this way: science (say, critical thinking) is a gift of God to humanity. If you don't wish to think that way, that's ok too, but then science is what it is, a tool for understanding, and religion is what it is, spiritual, untestable faith.
Is it perhaps that because religion does not demand critical thinking, it is too easy to fall into the trap of perceiving science as a threat to one's beliefs? But religion can survive critical thinking about itself, and in fact trying to form a coherent and non-self-contradictory spiritual belief system I think allows a fuller and stronger religious experience.
-
Bait and Switch- Evolution is NOT Darwinism, and the terms must not be conflated
The ID movement is pulling off a rather nasty bait-and-switch by repeatedly attacking the Theory of Evolution as Darwinism.
Darwinism is, of course, the late-19th/early 20th century social movement in which evolution was misused as an explanation for the supposed inferiority of "lesser" races- like blacks, women, and Jews. It was, in fact, a philosophy which Darwin himself, upon hearing of the nascient eugenics movement, dismissed as unworkable, and had almost nothing to do with beyond, of course, formulating the evolutionary principles which Darwinism abused.
Real "Evolution", on the other hand, is a purely descriptive, multilayered theory which can be proved or disproved based on observable phenomena- and which has stood the test of time, albeit with modifications to improve its accuracy.
It is very important for everyone to understand that when ID supporters call Evolution "Darwinism", they are demonstrating that they either do not understand Evolution or that they know they cannot endure an honest debate. That is why they are attempting to get you to defend Darwinism- which cannot be defended- instead of attacking Evolution- which can survive any attack.
-
Evolution is just another belief.
Natural selection explains variation within a species.
it does not account for speciation or the the development of complex systems and structures which are not an advantage unless all the parts come together to make something that actually works and is beneficial without having the same "magical" process which might as well be a deity or higher order pasta. (gamma ray burst, yeah, that's the ticket)
Perhaps the real designer is in the DNA, RNA and Ribosomes, or the higher order process or dimensionality which govern their operation and write the code. This is the same higher order and dimensionality which governs the behavior of atoms and molecules.
What do you want to call the process or cause for the animation of molecules to produce living things?
The current words have too many negative connotations, but in reality they mean whatever people want them to mean.
Aside from virii and bacteria where are all the new species that this magical process of evolution produces?
If anything, extinction of species seems to be far more evident than the creation of new ones. Most species go extinct and "survival of the fittest" narrows down the options while "evolution" is supposed to increase the options. Which one appears to be working?
The Smithsonian has an exhibit on evolution with the polar bear as the prime piece of evidence to make the case. That certainly is easier than explaining how reptiles or birds make the jump to becoming a mammal by accidental mutations involving live birth, hair and mammary glands along with all the hard wired neurological wiring required to make it work.
Is it all an accident or is it somehow orchestrated and designed via unknown mechanisms which are made manifest through DNA RAN, Ribosomes and all the rest.
How do molecules know what to do?
How do they move to a higher order purpose?
How is that explainable?
It is not an assault on science, it just points out the gaps and the questions best left ignored if they are going to sell science as anything more than a more sophisticated belief system. Variation on patterns versus the creation of novel paterns is the real clash obscurred by the religious proclivities of both sides. Scientists are no different from anyone else and are just as prone to error and folly as the general population.
Hey, some of these scientists are saying that since we can only see light from 14.5 or so billion light years away that the universe must be 14.5 billion years old. They forget to take into account that the universe would have had to take some time to get to that size (14.5 billion light year radius) and even if it was expanding at the speed of light, which it isn't, it would have to be at least twice their claimed age.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
How many dimensions in string theory?
The fact that people should thiink about stuff is a delight, but this subject seldom has anyone who thinks involved in it. Mostly just true believers on both sides of the same fence.