| Subject: Re: sticker sad |
Author:
pjk
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/19/04 5:55:01pm
In reply to:
pa
's message, "stickers said:" on 11/14/04 11:31:26am
>I agree with the Anti defamation leagues analysis of
>the first amendment: creationism, creation science,
>intelligent design theory are all religious doctrines
>Therefore, the government cannot promote them as
>science without violating the First Amendment. Can
>they be taught? yes....they should be taught in a
>religious studies class (as an elective) or part of a
>church religious instruction by properly trained
>clergy and by parents (where religious education
>properly belongs.
I agree - with everyone!
This thread seems to be reflecting the same old battle that has been fought over for centuries since people like Galileo and Copernicus began to point out the inaccuracies regarding biblical or church teachings about the universe we live in. I'm with geo on this one (in previous conversations) - why pussy foot around with people who have no interest in science but lots of interest in believing in fairy tales and imposing it in the public non-sectarian arena?
To me, this is a battle between living in a society that respects innumerable religious viewpoints by not publicly favoring any one in particular- by preserving a big huge secular realm for all people to share, perhaps best symbolized by science, perhaps a democratic republic - some call it liberal, others conservative. I suppose historically is is considered "liberal" in that liberal means "free." But it is also conservative (in a libertarian sense) in that we should seek to create a public system that provides the most (economic?) freedom for all. Anyways, it is the distinguishing characteristic of why America has been so successful, in my opinion. Europe as well. The asian countries haven't had the same bloody religious feuding - in fact, it seems it is an Occidental phenomenon... perhaps finding it's roots in the warrior-religion in the levant called judaism (and its subsequent off shoots Xtnty and Islam).
While it true that scientific theory, its claims of accurately describing the universe, how it looks, how it works, how it developed, what is consists of etc are duly subject to the same scrutiny as religion, and, philosophically, are are no greater footing in terms of apriori, but as krz seems to have pointed out - when it comes to evidence, especially overwhelming evidence, then science wins in the physical realm, bar none. What is so annoying for liberals like myself is the literal interpretation of symbolic imagery by religious knuckle-heads usually claiming to have no more proof than "It was written or inspired by God."
Science is not perfect, and has many limitations (at times not recognized by hubristic scientists), but "it," the incredible men women and children who contribute and have contributed to its advancements, is the best thing we've got when it comes to describing our physical universe in terms all but the biblical literalists are willing to accept.
It's one thing to say that "All is in God's hands" (general recognition that we will never have absolute control over anything or anybody but not a negation of humans as active participants in our environment) and another to say "It's all in God's hands" (and so if God wants global warming to take place so therefore to begin the age of the apocaplyse, then yadayadayada.)
p.s. What is more interesting to me would be to see the same love of questioning and critical and careful approach (but widespread) to cherished but not so complete histories of America... like from a socialist or native ameican perspective. Zinn's History of the US from a people's perspective is one such case.
Gotta run
Here's an article from time: Published on Friday, November 19, 2004 by Time Magazine
Faith-Based Parks?
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon
by Leon Jaroff
At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is one that illustrates another creationist article of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the trough is a sign reading “That River Didn’t Make That Canyon.” When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noah’s flood. That’s nonsense, of course, but what else would you expect at a creationist park? Certainly, one might think, this couldn’t be acceptable at, say, a National Park, right? Think again.
Two-thirds of the way across the continent, some four million people annually visit Grand Canyon National Park, marveling at the awesome view. In National Park Service (NPS) affiliated bookstores, they can find literature informing them that the great chasm runs for 277 miles along the bed of the Colorado River. It descends more than a mile into the earth, and along one stretch, is some 18 miles wide, its walls displaying impressive layers of limestone, sandstone, shale, schist and granite.
And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500 years ago, a direct consequence of Noah’s Flood. How’s that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise of “Grand Canyon, a Different View,” a handsomely-illustrated volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the writings of creationists and creation scientists and was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours of the canyon. “For years,” Vail explains, “as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.”
Vail’s book attracted little notice when it first appeared in the NPS stores in 2003, until a critical review by Wilfred Elders, a respected University of California geologist, brought it to light and took apart its pseudoscientific claims. That led David Shaver, who heads the Geologic Resources Division of the Park Service, to send a memo to headquarters urging that the book be removed from the NPS stores. “It is not based on science,” he wrote, “ but on a specific religious doctrine…and should not have been approved for in NPS affiliated book stores.”
The presidents of The American Geological Institute and six of its member societies also weighed in, expressing their dismay to the Park Service. Noting that the Grand Canyon “provides a remarkable and unique opportunity to educate the public about Earth science,” the scientists urged that, “in fairness to the millions of park visitors, we must clearly distinguish religious from scientific knowledge.”
But when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail’s book at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters, which announced that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February, 2004. So far, no official decision has been announced.
Even worse, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review has ever taken place. Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush Administration has already decided it will stand by its approval for the book and that hundreds more have been ordered. “Now that the book has become quite popular,” explained an NPS flack to a Baptist news agency, “we don’t want to remove it.”
Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon, and that the NPS has blocked publication of guidance intended for park rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis for creationism. The group has been increasingly concerned about what it calls the Park Service’s “Faith-Based Parks” and the agency’s seeming indifference to the separation of church and state Among other moves, for example, NPS has allowed the placing of bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses at Grand Canyon overlooks. PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch is indignant, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”
Is this religious bias, as some creationists charge? Hardly. It’s more than likely that the majority of scientists, environmentalists and others protesting the NPS stand are themselves intelligent, rational Christians who are convinced by overwhelming evidence that the Grand Canyon is no Johnny-Come-Lately. The creationists have demonstrated again that they are scientifically illiterate, and out of step with the 21st century.
Leon Jaroff was the founding managing editor of DISCOVER, the newsmagazine of science, and was a longtime correspondent, writer and editor for TIME and LIFE.
© 2004 Time, Inc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 