Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

The real battle has now begun.
The Dark Ages or Enlightenment.
Mysticism or Science.
Regression or Progression.

In this election year, in this country, a fundamentalist is on a presidential ticket.  
In this country, founded by those who eschewed religion.
In this country, born out of the age of enlightenment.
Yes, in our country, created by men (and women) of reason, a fundamentalist has asked for our votes.

I visit this blog and read the comments.  I lurk in the background and wonder at the ridiculous requests for civility. At the mock outrage over sexism when noone is saying what is so glaringly obvious.  

This woman is a throwback to the Dark Ages.  She is an example of small intellect and should not be allowed to rise to a level of power that can affect the intellectual growth of our nation.

Beliefs held by the Fundamentalist Christian Right:

The Bible (a book written by people) should be interpreted literally as the word of God.

The world was created by God 6,000 years ago in six 24hr periods.  

Men and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

Satan rules the world and his actions affect our daily lives.

God not man is the reason for global warming.  If he sends a great flood to sweep us into the sea, he will also send a boat for those who remain faithful.

Man has dominion over all the animals.

I will not go any further in this diary because I do not believe it is neccessary.  While everyone quibbles over experience and integrity, I will ponder one question.

Who is willing to push back against ignorance?

Tags: 2008, campaign, Creationism, darwin, Fundamentalists, Science (all tags)

Comments

30 Comments

Tips for the Ridiculous

and the surreal.

by epiphany 2008-08-30 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

Thanks for clearly stating what Palin is all about.  

This is her agenda. She wants us to live in a "Christian Caliphate."

by Stipes 2008-08-30 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

thanks

by epiphany 2008-08-30 09:13PM | 0 recs
I'm giving you a standing O in my den.

Just damn.

It has been a long time since I was righteous by anybody's definition of the word, but if I recall correctly from my born-again days, [H]e promised to never again destroy the earth with water. Wonder if destruction by ice counts as "water." I am, of course, wondering in an academic fashion.

Way rec'd & amen!

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-30 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm giving you a standing O in my den.

or if we sink into the sea.... thanks for the applause

by epiphany 2008-08-30 09:13PM | 0 recs
We need to make clear

that she is a Creationist, not just an intelligent design advocate.  I bet the GOP will try to muddy that, and we can't trust the media to clear it up, judging from one of the first links in my "sarah palin creationist" google search.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi cs/uselection2008/johnmccain/2651828/Clo ak-and-dagger-operation-by-John-McCain-c amp-to-keep-Sarah-Palins-name-a-secret.h tml

by JJE 2008-08-30 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: We need to make clear

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/electio ns/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

here is another good one

by epiphany 2008-08-30 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: We need to make clear

The best way to frame it is to simply say, Sarah Palin thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.

by JENKINS 2008-08-30 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

Public education has enough room to present all views. Science has never been perfect and neither has it always been accurate. For hundreds of years scientists have been debunking or improving upon the theories of others as more information and technology came available.

People who want to ban creationism from classrooms are like people who banned books. They are wrong. It should not be hidden or banned. It should be open to the same challenges as accepted sciences.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious proposition. We do not teach religious propositions in the public school system.  

by epiphany 2008-08-31 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

I would define creationism as mythology. If you study the revered scientists of the past you would know they also pointed to a higher power to explain what they did not know.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

mythology (n.) A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

The problem is that a creationist does not define it as mythology even as science has proven it to be so.  Creationism is presented as an opposing view to modern fact. ie the earth is only 6,000 years old.  

And your point only illustrates my premise, "revered scientists of the past pointed to higher powers when they couldn't explain something". This is not the Dark Ages. We cannot make the mistake of teaching our children to become complacent with unknowns by explaining them with magic. Religiousity has no place in the public school.  Save it for private schools, home schooling and philosophy classes.
 

by epiphany 2008-08-31 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

Then how do you explain the writings of scientists such as Newton, Pierre-Simon, Gallileo? Your "Dark Ages" explanation is naive.

The way to enlightenment is openess and challenge, not the dark age solution of banning what you don't agree with.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

i did not call for the banning of creationism. i made the statement that it has no place in a public school science classroom as an alternative theory of how the world was created. it is not naivate that compells me to make this declaration.  our government has made a compact with me, as a citizen, to leave my child's religious upbringing to me.  this is a compact i strongly believe must be kept, as we are a country of many faiths.  Do not fall into the trap of personally attacking my intelligence, this is a liberty that has no place in civil discourse.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

i did not call for the banning of creationism. i made the statement that it has no place in a public school science classroom as an alternative theory of how the world was created.

You can package it any way you want, but this is banning.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

not banning but abiding by the separation of church and state in public schools paid for by all of our taxes. my constitution guarantees this.  no matter how many times you repeat it, you cannot change what i am saying.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 06:25AM | 0 recs
I agree with you here.

I think it would be perfectly acceptable to teach creationism and many of the other Bible stories in a comparative mythology class, alongside the other myths.

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-31 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

People who want to ban creationism from classrooms are like people who banned books.

That's complete and utter bullshit, troll.  It's the people who believe in Creationism, that ban the books.

Go to Redstate to peddle this crap.  This engineer will be troll rating you at every turn, if you continue with this bullshit.

by Stipes 2008-08-31 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

You must be a custodial engineer.

You sound more like a redstater to me. You need to check your own BS. Afterall aren't you the one who is opposing the opportunity to challenge creationism?

by feelfree 2008-08-31 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

I'm the one who's stupid?

You believe the earth is 6,000 years old!

You're a complete Fuckwad.

by Stipes 2008-08-31 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

The difference is that scientific theories are subject to modification or refinement when new information comes to light and is reviewed and challenged by the scientific community. Until creationism is open to that same degree of review and challenge by the scientific community, it's not science.

by Liberal Monk 2008-08-31 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

People who want to ban creationism are banning the opportunity to challenge it.

I know reason is difficult for kneejerks like you to comprehend, but it really is the way to end the ignorance.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

 did not call for the banning of creationism. i made the statement that it has no place in a public school science classroom as an alternative theory of how the world was created. it is not naivate that compells me to make this declaration.  our government has made a compact with me, as a citizen, to leave my child's religious upbringing to me.  this is a compact i strongly believe must be kept, as we are a country of many faiths.  Do not fall into the trap of personally attacking my intelligence, this is a liberty that has no place in civil discourse.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Inherit the Wind: 2008 redux

Well, teach it at church then.  It is not science, ergo, belongs in religion and mythology classes.  

It's not science.

It's not science, period.

by Stipes 2008-08-31 06:23AM | 0 recs
What other theories

do you think are appropriate for science class, then?  Phlogiston?  Spontaneous generation?  Phrenology?

I'll wait while you google to find out what they are.

by JJE 2008-08-31 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What other theories

lol

by epiphany 2008-08-31 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: What other theories

i only know phrenology is the study of the bumps on your head.

how about the guy who said skull size was linked to intelligence? he categorized the races to show how caucasians had the biggest heads and were therefore the keepers of superior intelligence. thats a good theory.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What other theories

Your snide remarks are infinitely better than your reading comprehension.

Earlier I clearly stated that throughout history scientists have been debunking work that was accepted science and improving upon the work of others as more information and technology became available.

Then you list theories that have been already been debunked by scientists as if you're schooling me in some way.

The theories you listed were once accepted science just as the earth was flat was accepted and Pluto is a planet. Science itself continues to evolve. Debunking spontaneous generation and many other theories didn't happen because epiphany said so, you said so or someone who claimed they were some type of engineer. These theories were debunked because it didn't stand up to scientific inquiry and students should know this.

Religion has been introduced into science by way of explaining what cannot be explained throughout history. There is nothing to fear in giving students the information that dispels ignorance and misconceptions. It sometimes took centuries to dispel the ignorance or misconceptions, but in my opinion it is worth the effort.

Obviously you and others just want students to take your word for it.

by feelfree 2008-08-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What other theories

i don't think anyone could ever call me snide. I am saying that if there are things on this earth that are older than 6000 yrs old then the proposition that God created this world 6,000 years ago, over a period of six days, that dinosaurs and men walked the earth at the same time, that the beautiful stories of genesis should be taken as a literal history does not need to be argued or debated in the science classes of our public school system.  I am not arguing over whether people should have faith or religious beliefs.  I am arguing that once something is debunked it should not be debated in the classroom as an alternative to reality.

you seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person. i believe that you can see that my position does not threaten the freedom of children's religious values that they should learn outside of school.  It is not from a position of fear that i come from.  My tax dollars should not pay science teachers to teach religion.

lastly, i did not once attack your intelligence or earnestness.  your willingness to fall back on childishness lets me know that you are honestly not ready to have this discussion.  sometimes part of growing and learning is leaving schoolyard tactics to children. anytime you want to have a grown up discussion "feelfree" to join the debate.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 10:25AM | 0 recs
Creationism has also been debunked

Since you think that debunked "theory" should be taught in classrooms, presumably you also think the aforementioned theories should be as well.

You talk in useless abstractions like this:

There is nothing to fear in giving students the information that dispels ignorance and misconceptions. It sometimes took centuries to dispel the ignorance or misconceptions, but in my opinion it is worth the effort.

The question is whether nonsense like creation science should be part of science curricula in public schools.  Your only argument in defense of this notion is that students should be given the information.  By your logic, they should also be given information about the aforementioned equally nonsensical subjects.  I'd prefer that schools use their scarce resources to instruct students in actual science, rather than going through a multidue of crackpot theories simply because somebody once believed in them.

by JJE 2008-08-31 11:30AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads