| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear Paleonetites; I am a one-person sampling of the angry half of this country. Having said that, my intention is not to engage in "trolling" (nor is it the intention of my fellow science enthusiasts/professionals). However, I will respond to a side note that perhaps this is not the proper forum for political discussions; indeed it is, for progress in science is shaped by politics because they, like any intellectual subcategory (including religion and others), are intertwined and shaped by personal experiences and social influences. To begin, we live in a democracy. "> I find it sad in the post modern world that moral driven stances from Christian protestant values is seen as being wrong or irrational." Sir, there is nothing wrong with being Christian or Jewish or Hindu or whatever else you have. I think most would agree on this. In fact, I grew up Catholic; if religion or spirituality is your bag, then have at it. That's why we pride ourselves in being AMERICAN--in other words, freedom of speech, press and religion. Freedoms that at the time our country was being established were a breath of fresh air. The problem arises, Mr. Mahaffy and others, when these freedoms are reduced. Yes, I'm a Catholic, but I have "centrist" beliefs. (As a side note, "centrist" now equates to "liberal"... Not sure when that happened, but it was sometime in the last four years.) I do NOT believe in creationism. I do NOT believe that a woman's right to choose should be challenged. I do NOT believe that the potential for medical advances should be smothered in their infancy. I do NOT believe we should continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians (children, for heaven's sake) abroad. I know that these statements are all arguable, as well they should be challenged. (In fact, we as Americans SHOULD challenge each other--we are socially afraid to do so, thus stifling intellectual progress--all part of a growing anti-intellectualism movement but that is for another essay.) But what I believe versus what you (anyone) may believe is not the issue. A faction of Christians -- majority though they may be -- should not impose restrictions and regulations on what I believe just as the faction I belong to (whatever that may be) should not impose restrictions on anyone, either. So, to respond to your assertion that Christian values are seen as "wrong", what you are observing is resistance of *some* kind. I don't pretend to know what your experiences are, but if I draw from my own, I may argue that this resistance is panic of someone else's value system and freedom being put in jeopardy, and this IS wrong. Freedoms (or lack thereof) should NEVER be an issue here in the United States, but clearly it is. If there are people complaining at all, evidently something is not right that can be amended. Almost half of America complained on Tuesday by voting against Bush. Both "sides" (if we want to oversimplify here) are guilty of doing the same thing, and Mr. Mahaffy made a good point here. Both sides have segregated the other into groups (which may be why the country is so divided; we have prescribed to the message of either one political party or another and our individuality has in some respects been lost). Its the war between the radicalist crusaders and the baby-killing liberals. Obviously the world is not black-and-white and these labels should be ignored. (Just as what is honey to one person is bee-barf to another. Give it an ugly name and its appeal changes.) Some people that call themselves religious are also conscientious scientists. This should not be met with surprise, nor a huff of indignation. Science and religion rule two separate realms: science cannot explain aspects of spirituality, just as religion cannot begin to outline the natural world. To anyone on the outside, watching American politics unfold: unfortunately, Ms. Park was NOT overreacting. Our society is indeed at a pivotal point and every voice counts here; we should indeed be more worried now because, unfortunately (in my opinion), Bush need not worry about selling his image for re-election. A key issue has already been decided on in eleven states (that of homosexual marriage) and now we have to educate ourselves and decide: was this right?, and, what next? However, on a positive note, I think the American public has awakened from a long slumber. We will have to think and dicuss these and other issues for years to come, as we should have been all along. It is heartening to see groups of people animatedly speaking of politics and world policy (a rare sight, common nowadays). I am still young and continue to discover, as I hope most others do as well. I'm only 21 and perhaps haven't yet discovered my cynical side. We should not be afraid to confront and challenge ideas on a friendly level, such as this forum. Damnant quod non intelligent DOES go both ways, but it shouldn't go either way. I hope, as a human race, we can continue to learn. Andrea Repetto, Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences, Zoology University of Washington, Seattle On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, James Mahaffy wrote: > Folks, > > As I listened a bit to BBC (yes one of the Public TV stations carries it) Wednesday night, I thought their painting the election as a turn toward very conservativism did not reflect my impression of the states. > > I find it sad in the post modern world that moral driven stances from Christian protestant values is seen as being wrong or irrational. Yes I like a leader who shares my Christian values and that may tend to make me vote for him/her (we haven't gotten to the her yet nationally). But for that very reason I also voted for Jimmy Carter, whose political stance was democratic of a more socialistic stance, but one who was also driven by core beliefs that I liked. > > Yes, part of the folks who Bush appealed to were the religious right and some of them are radical. However most of us are not. One of the first defenders of Darwin in this country, Asa Gray, would today probably have been called an evangelical Christian. Many of the great Universities in the States were sponsored by protestant (puritans etc) and to this day many "evangelical" but not fringe Protestant groups still sponsor good academic scholarship. Bush is more in line with the middle of the evangelicals than the right fringe. Please don't stereotype all evangelicals with young earth [flood model] anticreationists. Most of my evangelical colleagues who are scientists (see the ASA) believe in some form of evolution. > > The irony is that in terms of spending money [although it is not clear that Kerry would have spent less], Bush has not recently been that fiscally responsible. > > James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279 > 498 4th Ave NE > Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198 > Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697 > >>>> breandan@campus.ie 11/4/2004 12:58:55 PM >>> > > Dear Lisa (and Palaeonetters) > > I think you're over-reacting. We are all aware of the creationist element in the United States, but I wouldn't dismiss all the "moral values" voters as creationist nutters. Being pro-life does not make you a creationist. (Many pro-life voters would not vote for a candidate who is not also pro-life, for example). As an independant (i.e. non-American) observer, it looks like Kerry's extreme liberal stance put off a lot of (conservative but by no means rabid creationist) voters who may otherwise have voted Democrat. > As to the question of what we should do about creationism, that's been a hot topic for a long time, and there's no easy anwer to be had. But in specific terms, the recent anti-evolution initiatives in the US have failed, and I don't think we should be any more worried now than four years ago. > > Breandan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lisa Park" <lepark@uakron.edu> > To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> > Subject: paleonet Moral Values Means Anti-Science > Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:18:45 -0500 > >> >> Dear Paleonetters and all people interested in Science--- >> >> On Tuesday, George Bush was re-elected President of the United States. >> Whether or not you supported him is inconsequential. What will have extreme >> consequences to those interested in paleontology and the study of evolution >> is WHY he got elected. Despite an unpopular war in Iraq and an >> underperforming economy, millions of people turned out at the polls to vote >> for Mr. Bush. The reason they cited was "moral values." Most pundits >> define this as meaning anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but it runs a >> little deeper than that. It is also anti-science, and for us, >> anti-evolution. With 4 Supreme Court Justice nominations looming in the >> next 4 years, Mr. Bush could appoint very extreme right-wing justices who >> could effectively put prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in public >> places and Creationism in the classroom. >> >> The time is now for all of us to come together and realize what is >> happening. One THIRD of Americans are evangelical Christians. They >> interpret the Bible literally, which means that they do not believe Earth is >> 4.6 billion years old, but do believe that the Flood caused the Grand >> Canyon. What was once thought of as a "fringe" element in American society >> has become the majority and, as witnessed on Tuesday, they VOTE. >> >> The question is*..what are we going to do? To borrow from two recent >> campaign ads: there ARE wolves lurking in the forest*are we going to bury >> our heads in the sand? >> >> Sincerely, >> Lisa Park >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Dr. Lisa E. Park, Associate Professor >> Department of Geology >> Crouse Hall >> 252 Buchtel Commons >> University of Akron >> Akron, OH 44325-4101 USA >> 001-330-972-7633 (phone) >> 001-330-972-7611 (fax) >> lepark@uakron.edu >> >> Damnant quod non intelligunt >> (they condemn what they do not understand) >> >> > > -- > _______________________________________________ > For the largest FREE email in Ireland (25MB) and 20MB of online file storage space - Visit http://www.campus.ie > > Powered by Outblaze > > > > -- Damnant quod non intelligunt (they condemn what they do not understand)
Partial index: