It's happening again:
March 22, 2001 8:33 AM Subscribe
It's happening again: "Do you believe you were descended from a monkey?" Rep. Denny Altes shot back. "If we teach kids they were descended from monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?"
I love, love, love the abuse of the word "theory" in popular media. Anyone who has had a college biology course will know a "theory" isn't a lofty idea but something that has been proven over and over and over again, and is pretty concrete in scientific circles, and the way laypersons use "theory" is completely different. Do most readers of the Washington Post make that distinction?
So does this idiot Representitive think if we teach children they were descended from god, they'll act like gods ("Timmy! You stop creating matter over there. I can see you! Stop it right now! If you don't stop creating light and heavens so help me god I'll spank your lights out"). Just what we need, more self-centered brats that think the world revolves around them.
Why not teach kids they were descended from Santa Claus? Just think how much nicer the world would be if all kids were pudgy and gave gifts? No wait, kids were descended from the Great Pumpkin! No the easter bunny! Everyone loves marshmallow peeps...
posted by mathowie at 8:41 AM on March 22, 2001
So does this idiot Representitive think if we teach children they were descended from god, they'll act like gods ("Timmy! You stop creating matter over there. I can see you! Stop it right now! If you don't stop creating light and heavens so help me god I'll spank your lights out"). Just what we need, more self-centered brats that think the world revolves around them.
Why not teach kids they were descended from Santa Claus? Just think how much nicer the world would be if all kids were pudgy and gave gifts? No wait, kids were descended from the Great Pumpkin! No the easter bunny! Everyone loves marshmallow peeps...
posted by mathowie at 8:41 AM on March 22, 2001
Yeah, when I was a kid, I would always through my feces at strangers who looked at me!
Ahh, kids.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:42 AM on March 22, 2001
Ahh, kids.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:42 AM on March 22, 2001
Even if teaching kids they're descended from monkeys did make them act like monkeys, we shouldn't refrain from doing so if it were true.
posted by kindall at 8:46 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by kindall at 8:46 AM on March 22, 2001
A similar mesaure was passed in the backwater of Kansas but repealed years later. I think the wack-o religious fundamentalists are feeling cocky now that we have a moron religious-sympathizer in the white house who has already proven that he has no respect for the separation of church and state.
posted by DeBug at 8:47 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by DeBug at 8:47 AM on March 22, 2001
Er. Not descended from God, created by God. Subtle difference. It's still ridiculous though.
posted by Caffa at 8:48 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by Caffa at 8:48 AM on March 22, 2001
I'm telling ya, if our culture recognized polyvalent logic none of this would be a problem. Sure you're descended from monkeys, and sure you're created by God. What's the problem?
After all, we still do say "sunrise" and "sunset" despite having known for centuries that the Earth that orbits the Sun...
posted by Foosnark at 9:08 AM on March 22, 2001
After all, we still do say "sunrise" and "sunset" despite having known for centuries that the Earth that orbits the Sun...
posted by Foosnark at 9:08 AM on March 22, 2001
Foosnark, the problem with that concept is that to be created by God and descended from apes, that means God created apes. Progressing further back, God created single-celled organisms and humans descended from them.
In itself not a terrible thought, and it took me a while to figure out why that concept was offensive to fundamentalists.
See, it says right there in the good ol' Bible that humans were created by God in His image. So taking that first step, that means that God is a monkey. Taking the second, God is a single-cell organism.
Either way, one of the subtle implications of the process is that humans have evolved beyond God, which is a rather blasphemous concept. Therefore, for God to have created Man in His image, God had to have created man sometime around the dawn of civilization (~6000 years ago) because since that point we haven't really evolved all that much. Certainly not enough to be noticeable compared to the millenia of evolution that's took place to get to that point.
The two concepts, unfortunately, are mutually exclusive.
Oh, and if it seems like I was ignoring something inherent in "polyvant logic" it's because I have no idea what polyvant means in this context. Could you explain, please? I've got a very shaky chemistry background, so I'm likely missing something.
posted by cCranium at 9:21 AM on March 22, 2001
In itself not a terrible thought, and it took me a while to figure out why that concept was offensive to fundamentalists.
See, it says right there in the good ol' Bible that humans were created by God in His image. So taking that first step, that means that God is a monkey. Taking the second, God is a single-cell organism.
Either way, one of the subtle implications of the process is that humans have evolved beyond God, which is a rather blasphemous concept. Therefore, for God to have created Man in His image, God had to have created man sometime around the dawn of civilization (~6000 years ago) because since that point we haven't really evolved all that much. Certainly not enough to be noticeable compared to the millenia of evolution that's took place to get to that point.
The two concepts, unfortunately, are mutually exclusive.
Oh, and if it seems like I was ignoring something inherent in "polyvant logic" it's because I have no idea what polyvant means in this context. Could you explain, please? I've got a very shaky chemistry background, so I'm likely missing something.
posted by cCranium at 9:21 AM on March 22, 2001
question for the well connected:
are there any good "evolution ammunition sites" to point people at for supporting those who deal with creationists on a semi-regular basis?
I could have used such a site against my grandmother when I was in high school. Defending evolution requires a background in science, some understanding of DNA, some good notions about biology.
I'm just wondering if there's a one-stop-shopping locale for arguing against the creationists and creation-scientists.
posted by artlung at 9:27 AM on March 22, 2001
are there any good "evolution ammunition sites" to point people at for supporting those who deal with creationists on a semi-regular basis?
I could have used such a site against my grandmother when I was in high school. Defending evolution requires a background in science, some understanding of DNA, some good notions about biology.
I'm just wondering if there's a one-stop-shopping locale for arguing against the creationists and creation-scientists.
posted by artlung at 9:27 AM on March 22, 2001
How do we know the Earth orbits the sun? Because some scratchy footage from 30 years ago says so?
But really. What's wrong with acting like monkeys? I'd rather be a monkey than be part of any species that includes Altes or his ilk.
And cC, maybe God has grown up with us. Maybe His image is not two-legs-and-a-beard, for the purposes of this argument.
Perhaps "God's Image" is more the step-on-those-you-feel-are-below-you-in-the-food-chain variety.
Because all God's chillen are pretty good at that part.
posted by chicobangs at 9:28 AM on March 22, 2001
But really. What's wrong with acting like monkeys? I'd rather be a monkey than be part of any species that includes Altes or his ilk.
And cC, maybe God has grown up with us. Maybe His image is not two-legs-and-a-beard, for the purposes of this argument.
Perhaps "God's Image" is more the step-on-those-you-feel-are-below-you-in-the-food-chain variety.
Because all God's chillen are pretty good at that part.
posted by chicobangs at 9:28 AM on March 22, 2001
Just about the best site for countering creationist claims is this one.
posted by jasonepowell at 9:37 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by jasonepowell at 9:37 AM on March 22, 2001
Well, boys and girls, here's a little info about Representative Altes. If you ask me, he actually looks a little like a monkey...
posted by jpoulos at 9:39 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 9:39 AM on March 22, 2001
Hmm, I always thought that we didn't descend from monkeys, but rather share a common genealogical tree branch or with them, or something. Nitpicking, sure, but I'd be very grateful if anyone would care to elaborate on this
posted by frednorman at 9:40 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by frednorman at 9:40 AM on March 22, 2001
... and the best thing about that site is that it talks about the fact that evolution has been proved. We've seen it happen in Lake Victoria. Pretty strong argument there.
posted by jasonepowell at 9:41 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by jasonepowell at 9:41 AM on March 22, 2001
My favorite is my coworker who holds that evolution is the correct theory for the origin of all animals except humans. Yes, that's logical.
posted by norm at 9:41 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by norm at 9:41 AM on March 22, 2001
The two concepts, unfortunately, are mutually exclusive.
Well, not really. To be created "in God's image" doesn't mean that God is human, any more than God is a monkey, or single-celled organism, or... Rather, it can mean a kinship between us and our higher power, in terms of creativity, etc. Some form of "guided evolution" is no more scientifically untenable than insisting that life began with no divine provocation at all. At this point, neither is provable.
posted by ChrisTN at 9:55 AM on March 22, 2001
Well, not really. To be created "in God's image" doesn't mean that God is human, any more than God is a monkey, or single-celled organism, or... Rather, it can mean a kinship between us and our higher power, in terms of creativity, etc. Some form of "guided evolution" is no more scientifically untenable than insisting that life began with no divine provocation at all. At this point, neither is provable.
posted by ChrisTN at 9:55 AM on March 22, 2001
Where the fuck do these people from from? Sure belive in your puny dead god, don't drag me into it. A friend of my smaller sister drags her to church, they talk about how the scientists don't know anything or where the planets came from or anything and that monkey thing is all dumb. Argh! I'm going to scream.
posted by tiaka at 10:28 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by tiaka at 10:28 AM on March 22, 2001
A couple years ago, when the Kansas Board of Education passed their silly little rule (since repealed), there was a letter to the editor in the New York Times which read something like:
"Dear sirs: I'd like to hear the Kansas Board of Education explain why we need a new flu vaccine every year."
Still my favorite response to the anti-evolution crowd.
posted by nickmark at 10:29 AM on March 22, 2001
"Dear sirs: I'd like to hear the Kansas Board of Education explain why we need a new flu vaccine every year."
Still my favorite response to the anti-evolution crowd.
posted by nickmark at 10:29 AM on March 22, 2001
The question I tend to ask is, "has evolution been guided?" Sure, the whole survival-of-the-fittest thing makes sense for hummingbirds with long beaks, but why were the amphibians (that evolved into reptiles, that evolved into mammals, that evolved into primates, that evolved into humans) four legged? Why do we have sensory organs for light and sound, but not electromagnetic fields? There's no reason to stop with biology -- why strong and weak forces (or maybe possibly one force acting like both)? Why matter and energy? Why time?
I'm an engineering student, and I "believe" in science. However, I've always felt that science is just a way of describing the universe as accurately as possible -- just so we can predict how the world around us will behave. I can't think of any time that science has tried to answer why those fundamental, axiomatic theories are true, because obviously, the answer is "god."
posted by Eamon at 10:30 AM on March 22, 2001
I'm an engineering student, and I "believe" in science. However, I've always felt that science is just a way of describing the universe as accurately as possible -- just so we can predict how the world around us will behave. I can't think of any time that science has tried to answer why those fundamental, axiomatic theories are true, because obviously, the answer is "god."
posted by Eamon at 10:30 AM on March 22, 2001
Another valuable bullshit-detection resource is The Skeptic's Dictionary.
posted by Skot at 10:35 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by Skot at 10:35 AM on March 22, 2001
Either way, one of the subtle implications of the process is that humans have evolved beyond God
Who's to say that any changes have been forward progressions? We started as a simple self-contained organism and over time we became bloated with needless complexity. I'm with Devo - clearly we're going backwards.
posted by willnot at 10:38 AM on March 22, 2001
Who's to say that any changes have been forward progressions? We started as a simple self-contained organism and over time we became bloated with needless complexity. I'm with Devo - clearly we're going backwards.
posted by willnot at 10:38 AM on March 22, 2001
I can't think of any time that science has tried to answer why those fundamental, axiomatic theories are true, because obviously, the answer is "god."
Only if you define "god" as "that which can't be explained by science." That's more or less my definition, but in this case it's a circular argument.
"They just are" is as good an answer.
posted by anapestic at 10:41 AM on March 22, 2001
Only if you define "god" as "that which can't be explained by science." That's more or less my definition, but in this case it's a circular argument.
"They just are" is as good an answer.
posted by anapestic at 10:41 AM on March 22, 2001
What I find interesting is how Altes wants to ban not just evolution as a theory, but also a scientific technique, a physical process: "related radio-carbon dating of animal and plant fossils." This seems to distinguish his position as being against the blasphemy of both the idea and the investigative act, whereas many other creationists simply claim that you can try any technique you want, but evolution has never and can never be 100% proved.
posted by Joe Hutch at 10:45 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by Joe Hutch at 10:45 AM on March 22, 2001
I can't think of any time that science has tried to answer why those fundamental, axiomatic theories are true, because obviously, the answer is "god."
Two quotes, or complete perversions thereof, come to mind.
Yoda: "'Why' not. Do, or do not, there is no 'why'."
From Run Lola Run: "The ball is round. The games lasts 90 minutes. That is fact. Everything else is pure theory."
If you ask me, the Laws of the Universe are what they are. The question "Why?" is a human construct, and can only be defined relative to human experience. The question is moot. "God" is an attempt to answer an unanswerable question--and it's not unanswerable because of our scientific limitations, but because (and this is the horrible, horrible truth), there is no answer.
Wow...now my brain hurts.
posted by jpoulos at 11:02 AM on March 22, 2001
Two quotes, or complete perversions thereof, come to mind.
Yoda: "'Why' not. Do, or do not, there is no 'why'."
From Run Lola Run: "The ball is round. The games lasts 90 minutes. That is fact. Everything else is pure theory."
If you ask me, the Laws of the Universe are what they are. The question "Why?" is a human construct, and can only be defined relative to human experience. The question is moot. "God" is an attempt to answer an unanswerable question--and it's not unanswerable because of our scientific limitations, but because (and this is the horrible, horrible truth), there is no answer.
Wow...now my brain hurts.
posted by jpoulos at 11:02 AM on March 22, 2001
“Why do we have sensory organs for light and sound, but not electromagnetic fields?”
Becuase we didn’t need to sense electromagnetic fields to survive…
However, if you hear or see a rabbit, you can kill it for food. Food, yum.
posted by gleemax at 11:19 AM on March 22, 2001
Becuase we didn’t need to sense electromagnetic fields to survive…
However, if you hear or see a rabbit, you can kill it for food. Food, yum.
posted by gleemax at 11:19 AM on March 22, 2001
If we teach monkeys they are evolving into humans, don't you think they'll act like humans?
posted by sixfoot6 at 11:23 AM on March 22, 2001
posted by sixfoot6 at 11:23 AM on March 22, 2001
I can't think of any time that science has tried to answer why those fundamental, axiomatic theories are true, because obviously, the answer is "god."
Or, "The Tooth Fairy." Or, "Vishnu." Or, "Consensual Hallucination." Or, "Jingles, The All-Seeing Cheeseburger."
posted by Skot at 11:25 AM on March 22, 2001
Or, "The Tooth Fairy." Or, "Vishnu." Or, "Consensual Hallucination." Or, "Jingles, The All-Seeing Cheeseburger."
posted by Skot at 11:25 AM on March 22, 2001
cCranium:
"See, it says right there in the good ol' Bible that humans were created by God in His image. So taking that first step, that means that God is a monkey. Taking the second, God is a single-cell organism."
The verse you are referring to is Genesis 1:26, which reads, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping animal that creepeth upon the earth." You are correct to say that the Bible says that humans were created by God in his image. However what does the Bible actually have to say about God's image? The Bible does not make any claim that God is a physical being. Christians generally believe that they are made in God's image in the ways that of personality, morality, and spirituality. Meaning that man has feelings, knowledge, and a will (personality), a conscience (morality), and that man has the ability to have a personal relationship with God (spirituality). This is what Christians believe sets them apart from the animals and plants.
I cannot speak for the Christians who believe evolution makes the claim that humans have evolved from monkeys, because I do not interpret evolution as to making this claim. However if a Christian believes that evolution makes the claim that they descended from a lineage of animals that did not share these traits, this is where some conflict will arise.
anapestic:
"Only if you define "god" as "that which can't be explained by science." That's more or less my definition, but in this case it's a circular argument."
Personally, I believe if any particular person (theist, atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.) believes they understand it all has a lot to learn. Science has its own limitations as does any religious literature may. How can any particular person make the claim to know it all? There is a lot that we cannot explain.
posted by crog at 11:28 AM on March 22, 2001
"See, it says right there in the good ol' Bible that humans were created by God in His image. So taking that first step, that means that God is a monkey. Taking the second, God is a single-cell organism."
The verse you are referring to is Genesis 1:26, which reads, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping animal that creepeth upon the earth." You are correct to say that the Bible says that humans were created by God in his image. However what does the Bible actually have to say about God's image? The Bible does not make any claim that God is a physical being. Christians generally believe that they are made in God's image in the ways that of personality, morality, and spirituality. Meaning that man has feelings, knowledge, and a will (personality), a conscience (morality), and that man has the ability to have a personal relationship with God (spirituality). This is what Christians believe sets them apart from the animals and plants.
I cannot speak for the Christians who believe evolution makes the claim that humans have evolved from monkeys, because I do not interpret evolution as to making this claim. However if a Christian believes that evolution makes the claim that they descended from a lineage of animals that did not share these traits, this is where some conflict will arise.
anapestic:
"Only if you define "god" as "that which can't be explained by science." That's more or less my definition, but in this case it's a circular argument."
Personally, I believe if any particular person (theist, atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.) believes they understand it all has a lot to learn. Science has its own limitations as does any religious literature may. How can any particular person make the claim to know it all? There is a lot that we cannot explain.
posted by crog at 11:28 AM on March 22, 2001
The fact that we have to expend even the tiniest amount of energy defending evolution to these worthless, mucus-brained morons drives me nuts!
And yes, that's my big contribution. You got a problem with that?
posted by quirked at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2001
And yes, that's my big contribution. You got a problem with that?
posted by quirked at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2001
"If we teach kids they were descended from monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?"
Kids will behave like kids. That is why they are children after all. It is up to the 18 years of parenting and social exposure to develop them into mature responsible people. That seems to be where the big breakdown occurs.
posted by a3matrix at 11:46 AM on March 22, 2001
Kids will behave like kids. That is why they are children after all. It is up to the 18 years of parenting and social exposure to develop them into mature responsible people. That seems to be where the big breakdown occurs.
posted by a3matrix at 11:46 AM on March 22, 2001
jpoulos, I think it's "try" not "why." Yoda is telling Luke to raise his X-wing from the swamp and he says something like "I'll give it a try," and Yoda lays the smack down, telling him, "No! Try not! Do or do not. There is no try." Ah, the Force...is there anything it can't do?
As for "why?" well, that's one of my favorite questions to ask.
posted by megnut at 11:50 AM on March 22, 2001
As for "why?" well, that's one of my favorite questions to ask.
posted by megnut at 11:50 AM on March 22, 2001
Why try and approach the bible rationally, or literally, at all? If we assume that God exists outside of time, and that we cannot fathom his fathom his design and so on, then what does it matter? Science and religion explain two sets of different information, one physical, and the other larger, more spiritual truths.
posted by xammerboy at 12:02 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by xammerboy at 12:02 PM on March 22, 2001
Speaking for Christians (I am one), let me just say we're not all like that. In fact, it's a small majority which don't believe in evolution, or that the universe is billions of years old. As Galileo put it, "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
posted by paladin at 12:05 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by paladin at 12:05 PM on March 22, 2001
well when i'm god i'll make sure things don't evolve in my image. no worlds full of pale scrawny guys.
dolphins maybe.
And i know i'm going to sound like a typical atheist assholio here or something, but the fact is, if you are a Christian who doesn't believe evolution is false it is because you are part of a belief system that has Evolved away from its roots. It is adaptable. Because the un-evolved christians, probably wouldn't even consider you to BE a christian.
[jpoulos...damn you, i now remember my copy of Run Lola Run is at my ex's house.]
posted by th3ph17 at 12:13 PM on March 22, 2001
dolphins maybe.
And i know i'm going to sound like a typical atheist assholio here or something, but the fact is, if you are a Christian who doesn't believe evolution is false it is because you are part of a belief system that has Evolved away from its roots. It is adaptable. Because the un-evolved christians, probably wouldn't even consider you to BE a christian.
[jpoulos...damn you, i now remember my copy of Run Lola Run is at my ex's house.]
posted by th3ph17 at 12:13 PM on March 22, 2001
Meg:
Yeah, I know that's the real quote. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned "perversions" of quotes. I shoulda made that clear, so as to not look like an idiot. :-)
It applies to "why" equally well, I think.
posted by jpoulos at 12:19 PM on March 22, 2001
Yeah, I know that's the real quote. That's what I was referring to when I mentioned "perversions" of quotes. I shoulda made that clear, so as to not look like an idiot. :-)
It applies to "why" equally well, I think.
posted by jpoulos at 12:19 PM on March 22, 2001
Some very good points have been made in response to my previous ponderous post, most of which are things I agree with.
chicobangs: I like the concept that God's evolving with us, it's pretty nifty, and I could probably type for ages on that, but I'm going to hold back because my fingers are sore. :-)
willnot: heh. Another good concept to explore someday when I don't have to depend on digits for communication, thank you.
ChrisTN (good alias, BTW) and crog, from what I can tell, are both saying essentially the same thing. Thanks for the quote, BTW, crog.
I didn't mean to imply I felt "in His image" meant physically, though I've had many a conversation with various Christian Fundamentalists who have stated that.
Christians generally believe that they are made in God's image in the ways that of personality, morality, and spirituality.
This doesn't exclude my argument, though it does force me to refine it. I said "God is a monkey" and "God is a single-cell organism" (though within context) because they're easily identifiable physical entities.
If, however, God created humans as single-celled organisms, your statement crog, when paired with the quote, would suggest that God's personality, morality and spirituality are that of a single-celled organism. Or monkey.
Although that thought process does open up a new one. Perhaps God didn't create Adam from literal dust, but instead He bestowed a bit of enlightenment (ala Prometheus and fire) upon proto-humans.
Which then got smart enough to realize that by eating the apple they got to be gods themselves, pissing the Big Boy off. Whee!
And let me clarify for a second. I'm certainly not talking about all Christians, I'm mostly talking about Fundamentalists, which are in the extreme minority of Christians.
posted by cCranium at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2001
chicobangs: I like the concept that God's evolving with us, it's pretty nifty, and I could probably type for ages on that, but I'm going to hold back because my fingers are sore. :-)
willnot: heh. Another good concept to explore someday when I don't have to depend on digits for communication, thank you.
ChrisTN (good alias, BTW) and crog, from what I can tell, are both saying essentially the same thing. Thanks for the quote, BTW, crog.
I didn't mean to imply I felt "in His image" meant physically, though I've had many a conversation with various Christian Fundamentalists who have stated that.
Christians generally believe that they are made in God's image in the ways that of personality, morality, and spirituality.
This doesn't exclude my argument, though it does force me to refine it. I said "God is a monkey" and "God is a single-cell organism" (though within context) because they're easily identifiable physical entities.
If, however, God created humans as single-celled organisms, your statement crog, when paired with the quote, would suggest that God's personality, morality and spirituality are that of a single-celled organism. Or monkey.
Although that thought process does open up a new one. Perhaps God didn't create Adam from literal dust, but instead He bestowed a bit of enlightenment (ala Prometheus and fire) upon proto-humans.
Which then got smart enough to realize that by eating the apple they got to be gods themselves, pissing the Big Boy off. Whee!
And let me clarify for a second. I'm certainly not talking about all Christians, I'm mostly talking about Fundamentalists, which are in the extreme minority of Christians.
posted by cCranium at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2001
As a life-long Arkansan, I'd like to say I'm surprised that this has come up again. But I'm not. There's a pretty powerful religious right contingent here in Arkansas (in fact, one of our senators, Tim Hutchinson, was recently voted the most conservative Senator in America).
However, this just seems like deja vu all over again:
1928: Ark passes law to prohibit the teaching in its public schools and universities of the theory that man evolved from other species of life.
1968: A lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the 1928 "anti-evolution" statute. The statute was declared unconstitutional by an Arkansas Chancery Court. That decision was overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which decision was then overturned by the US Supreme Court.
1981: On March 19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas (Frank White, during Clinton's involuntary 2-year hiatus from the governor's mansion) signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." Its essential mandate is stated in its first sentence: "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science." On May 27, 1981, suit was filed (1) challenging the constitutional validity of Act 590. Law 590 was eventually thrown out as being unconstitutional.
In 1981, there was massive media coverage of the event. Celebrities (on both sides of the issue) flocked to Little Rock. Legal and political careers were made and destroyed (Frank Who?).
I think this little Arkansas history lesson shows two things: (1) the religious right will continue to be elected to office and will continue to try to pass stupid bills that promote their religious beliefs over other belief systems and established scientific theories and (2) such laws will continue to be held unconstitutional thanks to the far-reaching vision of our founding fathers, who were, of course, Christians.
posted by sjarvis at 12:49 PM on March 22, 2001
However, this just seems like deja vu all over again:
1928: Ark passes law to prohibit the teaching in its public schools and universities of the theory that man evolved from other species of life.
1968: A lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the 1928 "anti-evolution" statute. The statute was declared unconstitutional by an Arkansas Chancery Court. That decision was overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which decision was then overturned by the US Supreme Court.
1981: On March 19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas (Frank White, during Clinton's involuntary 2-year hiatus from the governor's mansion) signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." Its essential mandate is stated in its first sentence: "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science." On May 27, 1981, suit was filed (1) challenging the constitutional validity of Act 590. Law 590 was eventually thrown out as being unconstitutional.
In 1981, there was massive media coverage of the event. Celebrities (on both sides of the issue) flocked to Little Rock. Legal and political careers were made and destroyed (Frank Who?).
I think this little Arkansas history lesson shows two things: (1) the religious right will continue to be elected to office and will continue to try to pass stupid bills that promote their religious beliefs over other belief systems and established scientific theories and (2) such laws will continue to be held unconstitutional thanks to the far-reaching vision of our founding fathers, who were, of course, Christians.
posted by sjarvis at 12:49 PM on March 22, 2001
Every now and then I stop worrying about the Xenu crowd, figuring that population bloat takes the edges of psycho belief systems.
There goes that idea.
posted by NortonDC at 1:06 PM on March 22, 2001
There goes that idea.
posted by NortonDC at 1:06 PM on March 22, 2001
thanks to the far-reaching vision of our founding fathers, who were, of course, Christians
I'm not sure whether you mean this facetiously or not. Truth is, many of them were deists. But who wants to go over that old dog? Not I.
The whole point here is psychological and more pointedly, how psychologically futile debate is, even with scientific evidence on your side, when used on zealotous true believers. It's been giving me ulcers for years, the inarticulateness that overcomes you when confronted by the brazen lies of creationism. Surely the good fight must be fought. But it becomes so hard to muster the energy when insidious laughter has met your argument, because the crowd is all on the great Christian orators side to begin with.
Proof: Awhile back Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial etc.) a beloved Christian author and lawyer was a guest on the Mike Rosen show in Denver (Mike Rosen economically conservative/socially libertarian). Johnson's adversary was a scientist from the University of Arizona. Rosen asked for each side to present their case. Johnson presented his obfuscated for the scientific dilettante argument and then it was the scientist's turn to refute. Each and every thing the scientist said was greeted by pompous laughter from Johnson. Oh how it roiled me. Mike Rosen said again and again to Johnson "laughter is the most transparent and intellectually weak way to debate an issue" and "instead of laughing why don't you present your scientific evidence?"
Johnson of course was unable to make a case, because finally he was called out as the fraud he and every creationist is. He stuttered and hmmmed and hawed. Hardly the great locutor he's portrayed as on Christian radio. Which is of course why religion is different than science. Namely that Christian radio is there to propagandize/ science is there to sift out the truth, callously and with disregard to emotion.
Two good sites I recommend are skeptic friends network and the talkorigins page.
posted by crasspastor at 1:19 PM on March 22, 2001
I'm not sure whether you mean this facetiously or not. Truth is, many of them were deists. But who wants to go over that old dog? Not I.
The whole point here is psychological and more pointedly, how psychologically futile debate is, even with scientific evidence on your side, when used on zealotous true believers. It's been giving me ulcers for years, the inarticulateness that overcomes you when confronted by the brazen lies of creationism. Surely the good fight must be fought. But it becomes so hard to muster the energy when insidious laughter has met your argument, because the crowd is all on the great Christian orators side to begin with.
Proof: Awhile back Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial etc.) a beloved Christian author and lawyer was a guest on the Mike Rosen show in Denver (Mike Rosen economically conservative/socially libertarian). Johnson's adversary was a scientist from the University of Arizona. Rosen asked for each side to present their case. Johnson presented his obfuscated for the scientific dilettante argument and then it was the scientist's turn to refute. Each and every thing the scientist said was greeted by pompous laughter from Johnson. Oh how it roiled me. Mike Rosen said again and again to Johnson "laughter is the most transparent and intellectually weak way to debate an issue" and "instead of laughing why don't you present your scientific evidence?"
Johnson of course was unable to make a case, because finally he was called out as the fraud he and every creationist is. He stuttered and hmmmed and hawed. Hardly the great locutor he's portrayed as on Christian radio. Which is of course why religion is different than science. Namely that Christian radio is there to propagandize/ science is there to sift out the truth, callously and with disregard to emotion.
Two good sites I recommend are skeptic friends network and the talkorigins page.
posted by crasspastor at 1:19 PM on March 22, 2001
cCranium:
If, however, God created humans as single-celled organisms, your statement crog, when paired with the quote, would suggest that God's personality, morality and spirituality are that of a single-celled organism. Or monkey.
I fail to understand how you are asserting that my statement and quote would suggest that God's image would be that of a single-celled organism or monkey. This is a misinterpretation of what I have said. In the Bible, it does not read God made "a single-celled organism" in his image nor God made a "monkey" in his image. Rather the Bible makes says that man is made in the image of God. Just as well, God's personality, morality and spirituality would not be that of man. For God exists eternally prior to the creation of man. Man was made in likeness of God. This is no different then how it was written in Genesis 1:26.
crasspastor:
Awhile back Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial etc.) a beloved Christian author and lawyer was a guest on the Mike Rosen show in Denver (Mike Rosen economically conservative/socially libertarian).
Interesting that you bring this particular debate up. I am curious if you have heard any of the other debates on Mike Rosen's shows like Dr. Hugh Ross's debate with Dr. Eugenie Scott.
posted by crog at 1:53 PM on March 22, 2001
If, however, God created humans as single-celled organisms, your statement crog, when paired with the quote, would suggest that God's personality, morality and spirituality are that of a single-celled organism. Or monkey.
I fail to understand how you are asserting that my statement and quote would suggest that God's image would be that of a single-celled organism or monkey. This is a misinterpretation of what I have said. In the Bible, it does not read God made "a single-celled organism" in his image nor God made a "monkey" in his image. Rather the Bible makes says that man is made in the image of God. Just as well, God's personality, morality and spirituality would not be that of man. For God exists eternally prior to the creation of man. Man was made in likeness of God. This is no different then how it was written in Genesis 1:26.
crasspastor:
Awhile back Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial etc.) a beloved Christian author and lawyer was a guest on the Mike Rosen show in Denver (Mike Rosen economically conservative/socially libertarian).
Interesting that you bring this particular debate up. I am curious if you have heard any of the other debates on Mike Rosen's shows like Dr. Hugh Ross's debate with Dr. Eugenie Scott.
posted by crog at 1:53 PM on March 22, 2001
If we teach monkeys they are evolving into humans, don't you think they'll act like humans?
Oh my, I hope not.
posted by jennyb at 2:15 PM on March 22, 2001
Oh my, I hope not.
posted by jennyb at 2:15 PM on March 22, 2001
Kids are taught in school that humans are carbon-based and 65% water, but that doesn't lead them to behave like charcoal, diamond or a glass of Evian. And that's empirical fucking science.
posted by holgate at 2:16 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by holgate at 2:16 PM on March 22, 2001
I just hope that kids act like kids. I have 2 nephews, and their mom always says that when I'm around there are 3 kids in the house. They are the funnest people to be with. We always have fun. And occasionally we do act like monkeys.
All work and no play.........
You just have to remember that as an adult you have a responsibility to instill in your children the character and traits to grow up and know right from wrong. Give them some guidance and they will probably find their way. Too often children don't get the attention they need to guide them.
What always strikes me as odd is the fact that you have to have a license to drive, a license to get married, why not a license to have children. Some basic guidelines on raising them, background check to see if you should even be allowed to have them in the first place too. I mean, you have to have a background check to get a gun now, so why not protect children by checking the potential parents. Being biologically capable of having children should not be license to have them alone in itself
posted by a3matrix at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2001
All work and no play.........
You just have to remember that as an adult you have a responsibility to instill in your children the character and traits to grow up and know right from wrong. Give them some guidance and they will probably find their way. Too often children don't get the attention they need to guide them.
What always strikes me as odd is the fact that you have to have a license to drive, a license to get married, why not a license to have children. Some basic guidelines on raising them, background check to see if you should even be allowed to have them in the first place too. I mean, you have to have a background check to get a gun now, so why not protect children by checking the potential parents. Being biologically capable of having children should not be license to have them alone in itself
posted by a3matrix at 2:42 PM on March 22, 2001
if you are a Christian who doesn't believe evolution is false it is because you are part of a belief system that has Evolved away from its roots. It is adaptable. Because the un-evolved christians, probably wouldn't even consider you to BE a christian.
The second part I agree with. Fundamentalists would say I don't go far enough, but the belief system of any Christian is based simply in belief of Jesus Christ, and that has not changed these 2000 years.
posted by paladin at 2:52 PM on March 22, 2001
The second part I agree with. Fundamentalists would say I don't go far enough, but the belief system of any Christian is based simply in belief of Jesus Christ, and that has not changed these 2000 years.
posted by paladin at 2:52 PM on March 22, 2001
The Hindu religion is based upon the Fly Agaric mushroom ( soma ) like Alice in Wonderland ate. There is also evidence that all religion is based upon some hallucenogenic experience like the Mexican town that ate Psylocibin mushrooms that Mr. Wasson investigated in the 50's.
mmmhhh.....
posted by Zool at 3:01 PM on March 22, 2001
mmmhhh.....
posted by Zool at 3:01 PM on March 22, 2001
Interesting that you bring this particular debate up. I am curious if you have heard any of the other debates on Mike Rosen's shows like Dr. Hugh Ross's debate with Dr. Eugenie Scott.
Actually no I haven't. Though in googling for what I posted earlier I found reference to it. I'd like to hear the the Ross/Scott shows however (It appears that there once was access to the archived broadcast at Ross's "Reasons to Believe" site, though a cursory search yeilded nothing). I don't live in Denver anymore and internet radio is unavailable in my car, where I did most my KOA listening while in Denver.
I'm curious as to what makes my reference interesting?
posted by crasspastor at 3:02 PM on March 22, 2001
Actually no I haven't. Though in googling for what I posted earlier I found reference to it. I'd like to hear the the Ross/Scott shows however (It appears that there once was access to the archived broadcast at Ross's "Reasons to Believe" site, though a cursory search yeilded nothing). I don't live in Denver anymore and internet radio is unavailable in my car, where I did most my KOA listening while in Denver.
I'm curious as to what makes my reference interesting?
posted by crasspastor at 3:02 PM on March 22, 2001
Again, people say they believe evolution and yet comparing them to a monkey is considered an insult. Or, that - like 'freewill' - it's not a matter of whether it's true or not but instead the best mental stance one can have (making the best with what you've got).
I've been called a troll for saying this, IANAT, but monkeys can often out-perform less able humans (yes, I do mean mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc). This isn't an insult - just a fact, keh?
Lines between the abilities of species are fuzzy and although humans have proven themselves to be the best other animals. BBC recently had a television series in an effort to judge the smartest animal (bar human) and New Zealand's Kea was their opinion. Personally, I think pigeons are smartest. I don't feel degraded by comparing myself to an animal and putting myself on a scale of intelligence - that's what evolution is all about. We're not special.
I seem to remember being instructed to play as animals when young (I was an aardvark - of all things a bloody aardvark). I don't see that this will change a thing.
posted by holloway at 3:15 PM on March 22, 2001
I've been called a troll for saying this, IANAT, but monkeys can often out-perform less able humans (yes, I do mean mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc). This isn't an insult - just a fact, keh?
Lines between the abilities of species are fuzzy and although humans have proven themselves to be the best other animals. BBC recently had a television series in an effort to judge the smartest animal (bar human) and New Zealand's Kea was their opinion. Personally, I think pigeons are smartest. I don't feel degraded by comparing myself to an animal and putting myself on a scale of intelligence - that's what evolution is all about. We're not special.
I seem to remember being instructed to play as animals when young (I was an aardvark - of all things a bloody aardvark). I don't see that this will change a thing.
posted by holloway at 3:15 PM on March 22, 2001
The second part I agree with. Fundamentalists would say I don't go far enough, but the belief system of any Christian is based simply in belief of Jesus Christ, and that has not changed these 2000 years.
My roommate Thinks he is christian. But he actually believes christ was the manifestation of some undefinable universal power or intelligence...not the son of God. I told him he isn't a christian merely because he believes in a name...and he is still sort struggling with that. Can you really just pick and choose what you believe and yet still consider yourself to BE something? I spent 25 years as a mormon. They think they are christians, but any "good" christian will tell you they aren't, same as a lot of christians see a big huge line between themselves and Catholics.
Can an evolving social organism like a religious belief be proof or evolution? of some sort? Why not? Its changed a HELL of a lot in 2000 years. If you think evolution is ok, if you don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, if you believe women are equal to men, you don't believe the same things as they did then, society has changed and christianity with it. It has Evolved and broken up into sects specializing in a certain niche of beliefs.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:34 PM on March 22, 2001
My roommate Thinks he is christian. But he actually believes christ was the manifestation of some undefinable universal power or intelligence...not the son of God. I told him he isn't a christian merely because he believes in a name...and he is still sort struggling with that. Can you really just pick and choose what you believe and yet still consider yourself to BE something? I spent 25 years as a mormon. They think they are christians, but any "good" christian will tell you they aren't, same as a lot of christians see a big huge line between themselves and Catholics.
Can an evolving social organism like a religious belief be proof or evolution? of some sort? Why not? Its changed a HELL of a lot in 2000 years. If you think evolution is ok, if you don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, if you believe women are equal to men, you don't believe the same things as they did then, society has changed and christianity with it. It has Evolved and broken up into sects specializing in a certain niche of beliefs.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:34 PM on March 22, 2001
My question is: what are these people afraid of?
If anyone's even still reading down this far, I got a kick out of this page: Things Creationists Hate. My favorite bits:
...Neither is it an attack upon those who see divine purpose or design in evolution, or view evolution as the handiwork of a divine Hand.
... They can't stand it that God has been working on this version of the universe for something like 14 billion years, and His workshop is so inconceivably huge that it seems silly to imagine the Earth and its dominant species to be the center of God's attention. They won't allow Him to work His miracles of life patiently, subtly, using the gradual, majestic power of evolution.
... Maybe the real miracle was performed by God when He designed a universe with natural laws that permit such wonders as snowflakes and hummingbirds, without His constant tinkering.
posted by smeat at 4:26 PM on March 22, 2001
If anyone's even still reading down this far, I got a kick out of this page: Things Creationists Hate. My favorite bits:
...Neither is it an attack upon those who see divine purpose or design in evolution, or view evolution as the handiwork of a divine Hand.
... They can't stand it that God has been working on this version of the universe for something like 14 billion years, and His workshop is so inconceivably huge that it seems silly to imagine the Earth and its dominant species to be the center of God's attention. They won't allow Him to work His miracles of life patiently, subtly, using the gradual, majestic power of evolution.
... Maybe the real miracle was performed by God when He designed a universe with natural laws that permit such wonders as snowflakes and hummingbirds, without His constant tinkering.
posted by smeat at 4:26 PM on March 22, 2001
Can you really just pick and choose what you believe and yet still consider yourself to BE something?
The very early Christians did not have the benefit of having the Bible in print, but they were Christians nonetheless, having just these two pieces of information: Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that he was resurrected from the dead. That's what I'm saying hasn't changed.
posted by paladin at 4:33 PM on March 22, 2001
The very early Christians did not have the benefit of having the Bible in print, but they were Christians nonetheless, having just these two pieces of information: Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that he was resurrected from the dead. That's what I'm saying hasn't changed.
posted by paladin at 4:33 PM on March 22, 2001
Why do we have sensory organs for light and sound, but not electromagnetic fields?
Because evolution is not a process of design that makes things perfect. It is a process of variation curtailed by circumstance.
posted by davidgentle at 4:56 PM on March 22, 2001
Because evolution is not a process of design that makes things perfect. It is a process of variation curtailed by circumstance.
posted by davidgentle at 4:56 PM on March 22, 2001
Does it matter that the Pope accepted the Theory of Evolution? To me, it means that Altes should not only be publicly derided, but also declared heretic. Or something.
posted by sja at 5:23 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by sja at 5:23 PM on March 22, 2001
Put another way: He's a Baptist. He's already a heretic.
posted by kindall at 5:57 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by kindall at 5:57 PM on March 22, 2001
Put another way: He certainly won't agree with the declarations of the antichrist.
posted by OneBallJay at 6:35 PM on March 22, 2001
posted by OneBallJay at 6:35 PM on March 22, 2001
holgate sez: Kids are taught in school that humans are carbon-based and 65% water... And that's empirical fucking science.
Actually, my bible says that "the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." (Gen 2:7) This bull-pucky about man being 65% water is in conflict with what is in this here book, and I'd like our schools to stop teaching our children blasphemous untruths like your "water theory".
Ok, I'll go sit down now.
posted by turaho at 8:19 PM on March 22, 2001
Actually, my bible says that "the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." (Gen 2:7) This bull-pucky about man being 65% water is in conflict with what is in this here book, and I'd like our schools to stop teaching our children blasphemous untruths like your "water theory".
Ok, I'll go sit down now.
posted by turaho at 8:19 PM on March 22, 2001
This discussion is relatively silly, as every one appears to agree. However, it is something that inflames the senses because it is so ridiculous. Most "creation scientists" that write books have doctorates. However, they do not tell their readers what subject they hold their degree in, usually engineering. They have no specialized knowledge of biology, but they could build a darn good bridge. Even so, the "Dr." before their names lends them credibility with the ill-informed. This tactic abounds in their work, as well as ad-hominem attacks, fallacies of assumption, and correlation fallacies.
Never publicly debate a serious creation scientists because they pull facts out of their bums that would confound anyone. For example, an attack on carbon dating: a living clam's shell (or some sort of shell fish) was carbon dated, and it was found to be thousands of years old. How could this be??? The speaker did not point out that the organism BUILT ITS SHELL with carbon from its surrounding environment. Meaning that the carbon being tested actually was that old! Unfortunately, the opponent in the debate could only look into this fact afterwards, he was left without a response. And, as most of the people who are silly enough to waste their time watching such debates are "creationists" themselves, he was made a laughing stock. These people are VERY good with words, very charismatic (if in a vomitous, transparent way), and very apt to misleading statements if it fulfills their goal. This is, perhaps, why so many of them go into politics.
There is a wealth of information available that disproves creation science "facts." Generally the logic is clear, but it is based on poor assumptions. However, the people who are committed to this cause devote their lives to it, and come up with new "facts" every bloody day. To actually try to argue with someone about this is almost pointless. They are not going to change their minds, and often manufacture and manipulate information to support their beliefs.
The fact that some people do this for their religion astounds me. Who are they to assume that they know how the God should perform its functions? If there is any sort of sin, it is just that kind of presumptuousness. The bible was not written in God's hand, so it must have been divinely inspired. Most of the readers on this list that are Christian appear to agree that it is subject to the prejudices and beliefs of the writers, but the basic messages, the general tenets, the lessons it teaches are what is important. That is the Catholic belief, at any rate.
Speaking of Catholics, did you read the comments at the end of sja's posting? Certainly a hard-core Baptist (and I do want to point out that Baptists come in all shades from hard core to soft core--much like porn but less scintillating) would not accept the Pope's word, as many of them believe that he is the anti-Christ. HOWEVER, her message offered the comments of some hard core fundamentalist at the end of the paper. All the "footnotes" are commentary on the pope's words. Go back and check that out to see how the other half thinks. If we can't have fundamentalist rep. on the website, at least it can be done by proxy.
Finally, regarding Kansas. I am from Kansas. It is unfair to call it a backwater. I have lived all over, and I find that every state and I mean EVERY STATE in the US has backwaters. Every state has hicks. This does not mean it is representative of the entire state. The Kansas issue was upsetting and embarrassing to many Kansans. A minority of individuals had been trying to get a majority of conservatives on the school board to push the issue that evolution would not be a required part of the school curriculum. This is bad, of course, because when students get to college, they need to have some understanding of the topic to understand basic anthropology, etc. At any rate, after years of trying, they happened to get control of the board. A couple of the conservative members of the school board were so old, they were actually living in formaldehyde jars. Okay, I'm lying on that, but you get the point. At any rate, evolution could be taught in schools, but it was up to the discretion of the locals. As you can imagine, in many small towns, people rejoiced not to have to teach evolution, they felt it a burden and were disgusted that their tax dollars went to teach heresy and so on and so forth.
Point being, there was also a huge uproar and embarrassment within Kansas over the issue, especially among educators. After just a couple years the fogeys on the board died, new people entered and the decision was reversed. It was not an inordinately long time, as was implied by another writer's use of the phrase "years and years."
I will say this, it is important to teach evolution in schools. I went to college in Missouri before they tightened their high school curriculum standards and their college admissions standards. There were people in my first year Anthropology class who were shocked and amazed by the concept. All they had ever heard was that evolution was ridiculous: they say we came from MONKEYS! and laughter. They did not know the basic details like the scientific meaning of the word "theory" the development of evolutionary theory (ie punctuated equilibrium, etc.), the main archeological finds that support evolutionary theory, etc. It was mildly exciting to see students so hungry for information, so excited, so interested and intrigued. However, I had been learning about evolution since 3rd grade, it was quite dull to me. In order to overcome regional prejudices, the professor spent 2 or 3 weeks on the topic! It was obscene and a distraction from other topic areas. If he had not done so, however, a large portion of the class would have been confused and unable to grasp or accept other material.
The point where I am concerned is, as previously stated, when students are not allowed to learn about it in school because of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context because this really puts them at a disadvantage if they go on to higher education, BUT MOREOVER, when they would go as far as the Arkansas bill which disallows use of scientific techniques. Very few people have addressed this, although it will have extremely serious impacts on the scientific community. It is as if they representative is so afraid that the scientists might shake his beliefs with their techniques that he feels the need to disallow their research altogether. If his beliefs are rooted in firm reality, they should be able to stand up in the free market place of ideas. What is the representative so afraid of, I ask? and is this legislation constitutional?
At any rate, thank you for reading this. It is appreciated.
posted by indigo at 8:58 PM on March 22, 2001
Never publicly debate a serious creation scientists because they pull facts out of their bums that would confound anyone. For example, an attack on carbon dating: a living clam's shell (or some sort of shell fish) was carbon dated, and it was found to be thousands of years old. How could this be??? The speaker did not point out that the organism BUILT ITS SHELL with carbon from its surrounding environment. Meaning that the carbon being tested actually was that old! Unfortunately, the opponent in the debate could only look into this fact afterwards, he was left without a response. And, as most of the people who are silly enough to waste their time watching such debates are "creationists" themselves, he was made a laughing stock. These people are VERY good with words, very charismatic (if in a vomitous, transparent way), and very apt to misleading statements if it fulfills their goal. This is, perhaps, why so many of them go into politics.
There is a wealth of information available that disproves creation science "facts." Generally the logic is clear, but it is based on poor assumptions. However, the people who are committed to this cause devote their lives to it, and come up with new "facts" every bloody day. To actually try to argue with someone about this is almost pointless. They are not going to change their minds, and often manufacture and manipulate information to support their beliefs.
The fact that some people do this for their religion astounds me. Who are they to assume that they know how the God should perform its functions? If there is any sort of sin, it is just that kind of presumptuousness. The bible was not written in God's hand, so it must have been divinely inspired. Most of the readers on this list that are Christian appear to agree that it is subject to the prejudices and beliefs of the writers, but the basic messages, the general tenets, the lessons it teaches are what is important. That is the Catholic belief, at any rate.
Speaking of Catholics, did you read the comments at the end of sja's posting? Certainly a hard-core Baptist (and I do want to point out that Baptists come in all shades from hard core to soft core--much like porn but less scintillating) would not accept the Pope's word, as many of them believe that he is the anti-Christ. HOWEVER, her message offered the comments of some hard core fundamentalist at the end of the paper. All the "footnotes" are commentary on the pope's words. Go back and check that out to see how the other half thinks. If we can't have fundamentalist rep. on the website, at least it can be done by proxy.
Finally, regarding Kansas. I am from Kansas. It is unfair to call it a backwater. I have lived all over, and I find that every state and I mean EVERY STATE in the US has backwaters. Every state has hicks. This does not mean it is representative of the entire state. The Kansas issue was upsetting and embarrassing to many Kansans. A minority of individuals had been trying to get a majority of conservatives on the school board to push the issue that evolution would not be a required part of the school curriculum. This is bad, of course, because when students get to college, they need to have some understanding of the topic to understand basic anthropology, etc. At any rate, after years of trying, they happened to get control of the board. A couple of the conservative members of the school board were so old, they were actually living in formaldehyde jars. Okay, I'm lying on that, but you get the point. At any rate, evolution could be taught in schools, but it was up to the discretion of the locals. As you can imagine, in many small towns, people rejoiced not to have to teach evolution, they felt it a burden and were disgusted that their tax dollars went to teach heresy and so on and so forth.
Point being, there was also a huge uproar and embarrassment within Kansas over the issue, especially among educators. After just a couple years the fogeys on the board died, new people entered and the decision was reversed. It was not an inordinately long time, as was implied by another writer's use of the phrase "years and years."
I will say this, it is important to teach evolution in schools. I went to college in Missouri before they tightened their high school curriculum standards and their college admissions standards. There were people in my first year Anthropology class who were shocked and amazed by the concept. All they had ever heard was that evolution was ridiculous: they say we came from MONKEYS! and laughter. They did not know the basic details like the scientific meaning of the word "theory" the development of evolutionary theory (ie punctuated equilibrium, etc.), the main archeological finds that support evolutionary theory, etc. It was mildly exciting to see students so hungry for information, so excited, so interested and intrigued. However, I had been learning about evolution since 3rd grade, it was quite dull to me. In order to overcome regional prejudices, the professor spent 2 or 3 weeks on the topic! It was obscene and a distraction from other topic areas. If he had not done so, however, a large portion of the class would have been confused and unable to grasp or accept other material.
The point where I am concerned is, as previously stated, when students are not allowed to learn about it in school because of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context because this really puts them at a disadvantage if they go on to higher education, BUT MOREOVER, when they would go as far as the Arkansas bill which disallows use of scientific techniques. Very few people have addressed this, although it will have extremely serious impacts on the scientific community. It is as if they representative is so afraid that the scientists might shake his beliefs with their techniques that he feels the need to disallow their research altogether. If his beliefs are rooted in firm reality, they should be able to stand up in the free market place of ideas. What is the representative so afraid of, I ask? and is this legislation constitutional?
At any rate, thank you for reading this. It is appreciated.
posted by indigo at 8:58 PM on March 22, 2001
> thank you for reading this.
Thank you for writing that.
posted by holloway at 9:25 PM on March 22, 2001
Thank you for writing that.
posted by holloway at 9:25 PM on March 22, 2001
What holloway said.
posted by Optamystic at 5:00 AM on March 23, 2001
posted by Optamystic at 5:00 AM on March 23, 2001
what optamystic said, plus a ROTFLMAO at "A couple of the conservative members of the school board were so old, they were actually living in formaldehyde jars."
I so know what you mean.
posted by lia at 6:22 AM on March 23, 2001
I so know what you mean.
posted by lia at 6:22 AM on March 23, 2001
Crog, let me clarify a little more. I'm playing around, running through various thought experiments. I'm not trying to make any kind of commentary on evolution or creationism, I'm just taking in bits and pieces of information and outputting the results.
I'm sorry if I offended you (though I don't think I have), and I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that this isn't any kind of argument on my part. It's just mental fun with a theological bent.
That being said, I don't really see any point in continuing with this thread. Have a good weekend.
posted by cCranium at 8:37 AM on March 23, 2001
I'm sorry if I offended you (though I don't think I have), and I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that this isn't any kind of argument on my part. It's just mental fun with a theological bent.
That being said, I don't really see any point in continuing with this thread. Have a good weekend.
posted by cCranium at 8:37 AM on March 23, 2001
« Older So if the homeless | "The paper gun posed no immediate threat Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Kids DO act like monkeys. It takes a grueling process of socialization to get them to resemble "humans." Some people.
posted by solistrato at 8:37 AM on March 22, 2001