| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Park,Lisa E wrote: > If people understood the fields of Astronomy or Quantum Physics better, they would try to disallow the teaching of that in our schools as well; since those fields, more than any other contradicts what is in the Old Testament of the Bible. You've got that right. I hate to generalize, but I imagine that the median intelligence level of these folks is a bit lower than the median intelligence level of paleontologists, astrophysicists, doctors, etc. as a group. Not that these folks "get" either one completely, but I think they can come closer to understanding Evolution than they can Quantum Physics. If they understood what Quantum Physics says about the beginning of the universe, they probably would be nearly as outraged as they are about Evolution (although Quantum Physics doesn't carry the "disgust" factor that Evolution does). > Why is it intellectually acceptable to "choose" what science you "believe" and what you don't? not based on the science, but based on religious principles? I think it's only intellectually acceptable to the people doing it. > There is a logical inconsitency to it. Exactly. Faith by definition is alogical; it's just a different sphere altogether. I consider myself a person of faith, and also of logical thought, and my own choice is to reconcile the two spheres in my own mind the best I can. Of course that often requires pretty broad interpretation of what I see around me, and what I read in the Bible. Some folks just choose to view these things exclusively rather than inclusively (read narrow-minded); obviously for them it becomes a classic case of making and interpreting your observations based on your conclusion. But I still think the controlling aspect of how these people think is their fear and loathing. To them, Evolution conjures up mental pictures of human babies issuing from chimpanzee mothers, and other equally disgusting images. Since they can't overcome these phobias, and can't admit that that's what's really behind their vociferousness, they can only couch their rejection of what the natural world is telling us in convoluted logic, pseudo-science, & faux-intellectualism. F > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk on behalf of Peter Roopnarine > Sent: Tue 1/18/2005 8:17 PM > To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk > Cc: > Subject: Re: paleonet Good news for evolution and science teaching > > > > Just have to be a bit of a stickler here, and I most certainly do not wish to > offend any religious readers, but... > Evolution, in fact _all_ of science, currently tells us nothing about > intelligent designers, nor the role of special creation in the origin of > life. Evolution is _agnostic_ on this argument, and rightfully so, since it > is a testable (and verifiable) scientific theory. This might be of great > comfort to atheists, but atheism is a decision to not hold a religious faith. > Likewise, there is no comfort to be had for religious views, since > reconciliation of evolution with any of those views is a personal religious > choice (regardless of the philosophical or theological underpinnings), and > not a scientific one. > Kudos to the atheists for spearheading this particular fight, and kudos to > religious individuals who value the role of science in understanding nature. > Just two cents from an agnostic. > > On Tuesday 18 January 2005 14:30, you wrote: > > > I agree with you David, and I am sorry I posted that particular email. > > > It was the only news I had of it at the time. I should have waited for > > > the CNN, NCSE, and other blurbs about it. I hope I clarified it in my > > > most recent post. On the other hand, it does point out that we need to > > > look more broadly than our own particular interests when it comes to > > > science literacy. Most religious people in mainstream churches, at > > > least, support science. > > > > Yes, I thought that you posted the initial blurb for the news content > > rather than the extraneous spin. > > > > The particular difficulty is that antievolutionists gain support largely by > > portraying evolution as inherently atheistic, a misrepresentation abetted > > by the philosophical claims of Dawkins and others. Thus, it's particularly > > important for us to point out that evolution is good science and compatible > > with many religious and philosophical views. All evolution tells us is > > that, if there is some sort of intelligent designer involved in the > > creation of life, he/she/it/they either used evolution or did an extremely > > good job of making it look like evolution was the method used. Very useful > > for biology, but not so useful for philosophy and religion. > > > > Dr. David Campbell > > Old Seashells > > University of Alabama > > Biodiversity & Systematics > > Dept. Biological Sciences > > Box 870345 > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA > > bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com > > > > That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted > > Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at > > Droitgate Spa > > -- > Dr. Peter D. Roopnarine, Assoc. Curator > Department of Invertebrate Zoology & Geology > California Academy of Sciences > 875 Howard St. > San Francisco CA 94103 > > Phone: (415) 321-8271 > FAX: (415) 321-8615 > WWW: http://www.calacademy.org/research/izg/roopnarine/peter.htm > No more wars please > > > > -- Frank K. Holterhoff MATRICuS Inc. Physical Design Engineer 570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101 972-221-1614 ext. 18 Lewisville, Texas 75067 fax: 972-420-6895 USA frank@matricus.com www.matricus.com
Partial index: