 |
| Comments on "Creationism Gets Green Light in Louisiana" |
|
 | Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 1:48:54 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"They had the nauseating audacity to equate Galileo's struggle against the church with their struggle against what they call, the "antichurch.""
As disgusting as it is, the tactic is strategically clever - and, given their primary opponents (the Left), an effective one to boot. The religious are trying to cash in on the Left's historic intellectual disarming of itself. The Left essentially holds that there is no objective epistemology - that all epistemologies are equally arbitrary. That being the case, the Left leaves itself unable to defend its secular views against epistemological attack. They themselves have made their secular views no less articles of faith than the religious views of the Right. And the Right knows this. That's why, more and more, the religious are claiming that science is just another religion. Because, fundamentally, that is how the Left treats it. That's what gives the religious their wedge - their point of attack. For, if science is merely a competing arbitrary belief - a competing faith - then that removes any supposed justification for the separation of church and state. In fact, absent a proper epistemological defense of reason and science from the Left, the religious can claim the 'separation clause' is simply the subjugation of one religion to another - that it is a tyrannical law which places the theistic religions under the dictatorial heel of secular 'religion'.
In other words, they can use the Left's own principles against them in order to remove the Left as the obstacle to repealing the Constitution's prohibition against faith-based government.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 4:26:41 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> "Despite heroic opposition . . ."
Gina, if you have time and interest, I hope that you will someday write an article briefly sketching the nature of that opposition. After listening to Ghate and Brook's lectures on creating change in the culture, I can see potentially great value in examining the successes and failures of other movements, especially "positive" ones.
1. Who are they--the individuals who are leading the movement against Creationism, the institutions which are continuing the fight, and the general nature of the materials they have produced (books, videos, weblogs)?
2. Did they make tactical or strategic errors, or, on the short-term, were their efforts doomed to temporary failure because of an overwhelmingly hostile culture there?
Thank you for your article.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 5:48:50 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: C. David Parsons
E-mail: author(at)questforright.com
URL: http://questforright.com
A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!
The text of The Quest for Right begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The investigation sums up the matter by the inclusion of Darwin’s sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…. Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge.
Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, you will be blown away by the in-depth exploration of the architecture of the atom. This is breathtakingly new and most entertaining!
The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, “Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second.” Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The investigative effort will prove to your absolute satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. “How could it have been otherwise?” The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person.
The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons, and whatever happened to the dinosaurs. Then, there’s the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space. You will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.
This is not your old science book filled with distortions of the truth, called “quantum mysticism.” The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
Learn more: http://questforright.com
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 7:17:39 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
The Discovery Institute's campaign of "Teach The Controversy" is extremely clever, and takes advantage of the fact the Americans generally value "fairness" and "open debate" as part of their positive sense of life. But without a proper explicit rational epistemology, they'll easily get sucked it by such specious claims.
This is just another example where the subjectivism and nihilism of the Left (which won't gain traction in America) opens the door for a false "positive" alternative from the Right (which could gain traction).
One way to illustrate the danger of this approach is to use examples that people can relate to, such as forcing schools to teaching astrology next to astronomy, or alchemy next to chemistry.
Some of these anti-"Teach The Controversy" t-shirts sum it up quite nicely:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
I especially liked the Classic Periodic Table (http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/elements/) and the Turtle Cosmology (http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/turtle/ shirts. I just wish the Turtle shirt showed that it was "Turtles all the way down..."
For more on the "Teach The Controversy" campaign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 7:26:36 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
BTW, Gina's post on "Politics without God" on this same topic is substantially different. You can find it here:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/07/design-in-louisiana-sc ...
Or just check out all recent posts:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 7:32:41 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
Burgess - speaking only for myself, I can tell you that there are a number of people here in Oklahoma who are committed to keeping creationism at bay. We were successful this year in keeping a number of anti-evolution bills from passing the state's legislature. Many such bills are introduced every year in this stronghold of the Religious Right, and constant vigilance is required.
One of the things that helps is networking, which the Internet has greatly facilitated: a number of forums are maintained where those committed to upholding the separation of church and state - the vast majority of whom here are not Objectivists - can keep abreast of developments as they occur and provide moral support to each other. I am proud to number some of the Yahoo! Groups I maintain among them.
Special mention must be made of one individual here in Oklahoma: Victor Hutchison is a former professor at the University of Oklahoma who manages the Oklahoma Evolution List Serve. He keeps us updated on issues regarding evolution and rallies the troops when it is time to go into action, such as recently when we succeeded in convincing Governor Henry to veto a "religious viewpoints" bill which was a veiled attempt to open up schools to the teaching of creationism as science. Vic also regularly comments on various forums here in Oklahoma.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 7:58:57 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://ecosmos.com
Glancing at The Quest for Right site, http://questforright.com, we find gems like this:
"The information contained in the voluminous project is all new from the get go, representing a complete rethink of the various areas of expertise. The material is tested by physical science, the old science of cause and effect. The extensive work represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. As a welcomed result, The Quest for Right extends well beyond that which is taught -- indeed, can be taught -- at the college and university levels. Hence, the author's title: Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire."
"The wait for a book on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, is over. Education is our business. The spiritual well-being of students is our goal."
"...the material in the seven volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state."
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 11:12:36 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
BrianS writes:
"That being the case, the Left leaves itself unable to defend its secular views against epistemological attack. They themselves have made their secular views no less articles of faith than the religious views of the Right."
While that is true, the Left's real target was the Enlightenment; their goal is to strip that movement and all of its manifestations (i.e. science and freedom) of its defenses against these attacks.
This nihilism at the core of the Left is exactly what Ayn Rand concretized in the form of James Taggart realizing that he wants to see John Galt die, **knowing full well that his own destruction would follow.**
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 12:36:07 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Jim says: "While that is true, the Left's real target was the Enlightenment; their goal is to strip that movement and all of its manifestations (i.e. science and freedom) of its defenses against these attacks." Indeed. And while I did not delve in-depth into the fundamental philosophic motives of the Left, I did allude to it when indicating the Left essentially holds all epistemologies to be equally arbitrary - an obvious attack on rationality itself.
The point of my post was not to explore the fundamental *goals* of the Left, but simply to identify one of the *consequences* that they themselves suffer because of it. My point was simply that - though they struggle to raise a defense *against* the attacks by the religious - their own philosophy has left them impotent when it comes to their making the necessary arguments for such a defense. And the religious Right knows it.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 14:04:24 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
BrianS:
Thanks for the eye-opener! This sheds some further light on an argument I had with a Christian who claimed that reason "can only take you so far" and that, then, the only way that you can ever be certain of anything is to "make the choice to believe" [whatever conclusion you reach], "take the leap of faith". Her assertions were very much along the lines that there's no such thing as objective knowledge reached by "reason alone", certainty [and therefore knowledge]is a product of faith, not of reason, reason can be a useful tool to help think something through, but faith is the real hero. In essence, what she said boiled down to the claim that man can't know anything [through reason], all [human] knowledge is subjective, faith is the real source of knowledge. She claimed that reason and faith are "partners" and that "pure reason" [reason alone] is harmful. (She didn't say anything about faith being harmful. Somehow I have an idea that when she realizes some conclusion is mistaken, it's not faith she gives the blame to.) She did claim that various secular ideas are religions, and that any [I forget her wording -- "system of ideas"? "strong belief"? ] is a religion. I think she named atheism and the Theory of Evolution as religions.
Skepticism and faith really are two sides of the same coin. The historian Will Durant (a Catholic) said something to the effect that no skeptic will ever be a true threat to religion. My Christian aquaintance *tries* to reduce everyone to skepticism in order to destroy arguments against faith. Doubt that there's any such thing as real knowledge or legitimate certainty, is not the enemy nor the opposite of faith. The enemies of faith are reason and knowledge.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 15:22:36 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
In post #3 above I recognize a tactic I've seen before: when a secularist begins to recount some nasty childhood experience with religion, a Christian apologist jumps in and plays up the idea that there was a lot of emotional trauma to the secularist during childhood. The Christian attempts to insinuate that the secularist is a psychologically-damaged, irrational person whose attack on religion is emotionally driven "because the secularist blames all of his problems on religion", is "Militating Against God", etc.
The Christian doesn't mind if an experience involving religion gets the blame for the supposed trauma to the secularist -- just as long as the Christian can portray the secularist as someone who's had severe emotional trauma, and as long as the Christian can use that claim to try to discredit the secularist. The Christian can then claim that it's not religion that traumatizes children, the secularist just ran into one bad-egg preacher and blames religion for it, or the secularist was damaged by his own rebellious reaction to God's claim on his life, or whatever else the Christian can ad lib out of his imagination.
It's an ad hominem attack.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 15:40:55 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Richard,
Thanks :)
And you are exactly correct, the enemy of faith is indeed reason (because it is the only epistemological method by which man can gain knowledge of reality). That's why I say, when it comes to the issue of epistemology and the State, we need to do more than just make the *negative* case - the case *against* the union of faith and state. We very much need to make the *positive* case as well - the case *for* the union of reason and state.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 16:07:10 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"The Christian attempts to insinuate that the secularist is a psychologically-damaged, irrational person whose attack on religion is emotionally driven "because the secularist blames all of his problems on religion"...It's an ad hominem attack. "
Yup. Psychologizing is alive, well, and breeding - both within and outside the religious movements.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 16:34:05 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> "Skepticism and faith really are two sides of the same coin."
Even more broadly, skepticism and _mysticism_ are two sides of the same coin. Faith is one type of mysticism.
Other types of "claim[s] to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge" are instinct, intuition, revelation, and "just knowing," as Ayn Rand explains. (She discusses the types of mysticism in her essay "Faith and Force," Ch. 7 of _Philosophy: Who Needs It_, pp. 75-76.) I would add appeals to "common sense" and "direct experience" (of God, for example) where these terms are used as synonyms for "intuition."
|
| Friday, August 1, 2008 at 6:22:27 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Monica Hughes
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://sparkasynapse.blogspot.com
Greg quoted --
"The so-called constitutional separation of church and state." Yeah. Love it.
Not a far cry from conditioning your readers with, "The "so-called" constitutional separation of church and state." Maybe in a few years they'll add that instead. And then a few more years down the line, this: "The putative constitutional separation of church and state." And after a few decades? This: "The unfounded idea of the separation of church and state."
|
| Friday, August 1, 2008 at 9:13:02 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Don't forget these as well: "The discriminatory separation of church and state." And, ultimately: "The tyrannical separation of church and state." Though I don't know that it will take as long as decades before we hear these claims. We've already gotten a taste of them from the movie "Expelled". They just haven't gotten as far as applying their epistemological attack to the constitution itself - yet.
|
| Friday, August 1, 2008 at 9:31:27 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Somewhat apropos, a novel I'm looking forward to reading in the near future is Ken MacLeod's "The Night Sessions," set later in this century after a fictitious future historical event called "the Faith Wars." One of the reviews of the novel I've seen (http://www.sffworld.com/brevoff/468.html) quotes it as starting with
‘The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, nor on any other.’ (from the Thirty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States)
Science fiction has at best an iffy record as far as predicting the actual future; it's an old cliché of the field that every decade has its own future. But that's a prediction I'd welcome seeing come true. Though not the nuclear war in the Near East that apparently precedes it. Still, I'm glad to see a novelist taking the issue seriously, and apparently coming out on the right side.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "Creationism Gets Green Light in Louisiana" |
|
|
|
