|
How refreshing to read such a fair, balanced article. This guy is definitely Pulitzer material.
A detailed rebuttal would be wasted on a pinhead like Miller. But to make one point, his description of this controversy as a reversal of Christians being fed to lions is simply idiotic. No one is being killed or even threatened with violence; to the extent that there are real-world consequences such as loss of job or repution, it is almost always the creationist side that is victimized.
| If they had as strong a case as their liberal whining complainers claim, they'd be there to blow the creationists out of the water. But they can't so they take their ball and go home. |
An intellectual refutation of ID you won't see, not here, not in Kansas. You will see mud slinging, whining, name calling, logical fallacies galore, and a little chest thumping, but no more intellectual material from the pouting evos than you'd find at spring break in Daytona.
An interesting example of a specifically scientic, rather than philosophical, rejoinder to orthodox Darwinism has been provided by Rupert Sheldrake's theory of "morphogenetic fields," which reintroduces a neo-Aristotelian notion of "form" into scientific theory. I firmly believe that the day will come when today's Darwinism will be laughed at by the scientific community. As Schopehhauer said, "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed; in the second, it is opposed; in the third, it is regarded as self-evident." Or, in the words of Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."
For example, here are some examples in the article where conservative is associated directly with the anti-science position:
Following that revelation, conservative Christian board member Kathy Martin acknowledged that she had not read the recommendations in their entirety either.
The state school board, comprised of ten members, is dominated by six conservative Christian members.
This is a political issue for the ultra conservative faction on the state board who currently hold 6/4 majority.
Howard Ahmanson, an ultra-conservative California savings and loan heir, has provided Discovery with millions of dollars in funding.
And the entire last paragraph:
Take a long, hard look at "Scopes II." Kansas may be a stronghold for the Religious Right, but it is not an aberration to be dismissed lightly. Dominionism, the act of Christians rising to fulfill their God-appointed places of rulers of the Earth (see Genesis 1:26), is the ultimate goal of this movement, and the Religious Right is increasing its political power across the country with each passing day. “Scopes II” is merely the first of many circus-like spectacles, not unlike those held in the Colosseum of ancient Rome. However, this time around the “true Christians” of the Religious Right intend to make lion fodder of their opposition.
On the other hand, two "moderates" are interviewed for quotes, but no reference is made to their political affiliation, if any.
What do the moderate school board members think?
At least two of the more moderate members of the board have refused to participate in the process.
Carol Rupe, another moderate board member, expressed her views...
Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Republican or conservative support for science or the theory of evolution. Equally absent is any mention that many people working in the sciences have faith or go to religious services. This article is nothing but a blatant attempt to paint Republicans as being anti-science religious extremists. Articles like these only serve to reinforce the stereotype that conservatives are all religious extremists on a crusade to turn the nation into a theocracy.
Despite the portrayal in the article, most conservatives and Republicans I know are supporters of the sciences, and do not feel there is a conflict between science and religion, or faith and evolution. Unfortunately, the creationist movement is unwittingly playing into the hands of the Democrats.
Hmmmmm Was it this week or last that I read that scientists just made human eggs?
Those who are arguing for Intelligent Design should have brought the scientists who created the human eggs into court to prove to the Darwinists just how easy it was for God to create Adam and then Eve.
Then ask the Darwinists to show us their prof :)
In Kansas and her sister state, Turkey, science is evolving into the Great Egress.
I lack the arrogance needed to tell the Creator how He created the Universe.
Bump
Reading these exchanges, and many similar ones in other corners of netspace, I begin to understand what uncommitted bystanders must have experienced as they watched the gushing of odium theologicum during the creedal controversies of the early centuries of CE. Knock down drag out fights between theologically illiterate or semi-literate partisans for or against the inclusion of the "filioque clause" in the creed, for example.
At the extremes, we have two groups of committed believers, what H.L. Mencken would have called "the simian faithful", arguing for their favorite fundamentalism, either for the 'facthood' of dogmatic Darwinian "just so" stories to explain how mindless uncreated matter organized itself into sentient beings, or for the 'facthood' of the most literal possible reading of the opening chapters of Genesis. In between, we have a wide spectrum of views, with the weaker arguments based on tarring all who hold opposing views with one of the extremes.
One cannot resolve the issue by insisting on Pickwickian definitions of "science" that tuck the desired conclusion into the boundary rules for legitimate scientific discourse. Members of the Darwinian guild and their devotees are attempting to do just this in their critiques of Intelligent Design, but it won't stick (except in the guild journals, MSM, and research funding bureacracies that they control). At the moment, this is nearly all of the above, but that will not last.
It is an interesting question: "What can we say scientifically about the origins of life, and the origins, if any, of the intelligible universe?" The question is far from settled, and I think the Intelligent Design investigators are making useful contributions to the discussion, so far mainly in pointing out the boundaries of what we can intelligibly say about the matter. They are no closer to a definitive answer than the adamant Darwinists, but at least they have the modesty to admit it, sometimes. I suppose that could change if, somehow, they became dominant. The scientific enterprise makes progress only by throwing light on the boundaries of the intelligible, and being an occassion for thought about where and how the boundaries might be extended. Denying that there are boundaries, or pretending one has not bumped up against a boundary, is a formula for invincible ignorance.
It is embarrassing to the authority claims of the scientific community that the currently dominant partisans for a mindless, eternal, uncreated universe are attempting to rule their opponents out of order as a matter of scientific principle. Sooner or later, this over-reaching on knowledge claims will catch up with them, and either dissolve or at least significantly diminish these illegitimate authority claims. The practical results will be less resources available to them to press their claims, and diminished control over the levers of access to research funds. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
I wonder what the article would have been like if Mencken had written it.
Once again, my great-great grandfather's name is besmirched....
That may be the stance of much of the scientific community, but it most certainly does NOT reflect the writer's anti-Christian bias, as exhibited here:
William Harris, a close associate of Calvert, is a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and has admitted that he believes that the Christian God is the "Intelligent Designer."
He admits it?! This is what Mr. Miller cites as evidence that Harris' credentials are questionable.
which the Religious Right is attempting to sneak into public classrooms through a variety of means, including this farcical "hearing" in Kansas. In 1991, Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor, kicked off the movement by authoring Darwin on Trial.
Yes, Berkeley is known as a hotbed of Right-wing religious nuts.