Evolving Double Standards

National Review ^ | April 01, 2004 | John West

[Heartlander]

I'm having real trouble putting this under any heading other than "be careful what you wish for". This looks remarkably like creationists reaping what they have sown, and once I stop laughing my butt off and wiping the tears from my eyes, I'll probably suggest - once again - that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom.

"Be careful what you wish for?" But my dear Dorothy, religion has been there the whole time. Just click your heals together three times and say, “There’s no place like naturalism ”

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
-- Robert Anson Heinlein

[Junior]

Two days later, he's finished and she's just getting started...

[general_re]

You misunderstand. I wish I could believe it was intentional.

[PatrickHenry]

Two days later, he's finished and she's just getting started...

Ain't that the truth. By the way, if you study the pic closely (as I know you already have) you'll notice a definite smile on his face, while the female looks like a grump. I guess that means they're married.

[Heartlander]

Yes, attack my intentions… You are consistent.

You tossed the creationist label out in your first response and the article had nothing to do with creationism but still deals with government-funded religion.

So go ahead and laugh your hypercritical and hypocritical butt off… I suggest you continue to blame ‘creationists’ for all of the problems in 'your' world and continue to live in 'your' own ‘creation’.

[general_re]

I'm not "blaming" anyone, just enjoying the rich, dark irony here. We're finally getting around to bringing religious talk into the science classroom, just like the Discovery Institute has been pushing for all along, and what does the Discovery Institute guy complain about? That religion doesn't belong in the classroom! Well, he taketh away with that hand, but the DI is only too willing to give with the other - he's just upset that it's the wrong sort of religion in the science classroom. You're not supposed to bring in religious folk to support evolution, you're supposed to bring it in to attack evolution.

Well, creationists can't have it both ways, although Lord knows that won't stop them from trying. Either religion goes in, and they learn to live with it when the "wrong sort" finds its way in front of the kids, or we agree that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom, in which case creationism is right out. Oh, sure, occasionally you'll get ignorant objections that there's already some sort of "religion" in the classroom, but those come from uneducated people who don't know about and don't care about the difference between methodological naturalism and full-on materialism, so we don't have to waste any time answering to those too addled to understand what exactly it is they object to.

[A.J.Armitage]

So, would you like to "establish" your philosophical worldview, and if so, how?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Ichneumon]

So, would you like to "establish" your philosophical worldview,

Not in the way you probably mean "establish", no.

and if so, how?

See above.

[NC28203]

After reviewing Cowgirl's post again, I will concede your point. I was incorrect to cite the Iroquois creation story since Cowgirl does not specifically call for the teaching of Creationism (though I would wager that is what she would like to have done). But based on her words in the post and without further indication I will assume that she would prefer no version of creation be taught.
I would counter that since we are supposed to be teaching science, we at least go for the theory that has testable hypotheses> Lets leave creation stories out of the picture as there is as much scientific evidence of this continent being formed from the back of a turtle as there is that the Earth was formed in six days about 6,000 years ago.

[Right Wing Professor]

But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution.

I agree with the Discovery Institute on this one issue. Science courses should not mention religion, period. Going through a list of religions which endorse evolution is getting too close to an establishment of religion for my taste.

[Buckeye Bomber]

OK, if scientific naturalism is a religion, what isn't a religion? Is calculus a religion? This reminds of a Calvin and Hobbes comic, where Calvin says math is faith-based.

I love this Darwin = socialism argument. Way to tie all of the things republicans hate together. But of course, creationism/puppy-killing/Maoism isn't a religion.

[A.J.Armitage]

How do you think I mean "establish"?

[Right Wing Professor]

But of course, creationism/puppy-killing/Maoism isn't a religion.

Much better to mention is that fundamentaist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity hate evolution equally. 'If they agree on this, maybe they agree on flying airplanes into buildings. Hmmmm?'

[Ichneumon]

How do you think I mean "establish"?

What do you think I thought you meant by "establish"? (We could play this game all week, but I've got better things to do.)

I'm not going to play "twenty questions" with you about what you might have meant.

If you want to clarify your question and ask it again, feel free.

If not, that works for me too.

[A.J.Armitage]

Since you chose to answer based on your guess at what I mean, of course I'll want to know what that guess was.

Of course, by asking "if so, how?" I took in any and all possible meanings of "establish".

IOW, you're being evasive.

[Cowgirl]

I beg your pardon, but they do sight "nothing" in public school text books. Not all of them say the same thing because they usually have a different slant as to how we actually evolved. Also, you have to start from "nothing" because there had to be a beginning at some time.

[Cowgirl]

We have evidence of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
You haven't evidence that a dinosaurs turned into a birds. When there is evidence cited, it is found out later to either be a fraud or a mistake. Fossils prove nothing except the thing died. The ape pictures are just made up. They even put human looking feet on their displays to prove their point when no human looking feet were ever found with the ape bones. The horse chart is a fraud. The tadpole looking embryos is a fraud. The big bang theory is nothing but a religion. If there was a big bang everything would be spinning in the same direction which it is not.

[Cowgirl]

I have seen with my own eyes public school text books stating that we started from nothing. Then they go on to say a little dot the size of a pin exploded and that was the big bang. I find it amusing creationists are to "get it right" when the text books are filled with proven lies from one end to the other. The embryo story is a proven lie, the horse story is a proven lie, the moth story is a proven fraud, and the ape pictures are purely fictional.
Fossils prove nothing except that the creature is dead.
The layers they come in are just that, layers of the earth.
They want to date something by the layers they come in but
will come up with answers only after they have already decided how many billions of years to add because of the layer it comes in. It is all catch 22. The carbon dating
consistently produces different results and cannot date something unless they consider the layer.

[Cowgirl]

I am only for teaching science that does not include lies, of which the text books are full. They must lie in order to have something to prove evolution. I have no problem with showing truth that is known, not theory that is ridiculous. A bird can adapt to a climate or be bred to look quite different than what it started out to be, but it will still be a bird. If there were no dinosaurs ever present a few thousand years ago, why do
caves have pictures of dinosaurs drawn by american Indians before the white man ever showed up. There are many such
evidences of man living with dinosaurs, but they were called dragons. The word dinosaur did not exist then. Why does written history take us back to a maximum of 10,000 years but the only evidence for prehistoric times
is a few fossils supposedly dated by the layers. The
earth is winding down, it is not evolving. You have not
studied creationism if you think there is no evidence for
a different theory than the lying evolutionists.