Reflectorites
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:38:38 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>First things first. On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 I wrote:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>[...]
>>
>>BTW what does this mean:
>>
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:43:52 -0500, Susan *Brassfield Cogan* wrote:
>>
>>Are congratulations in order?
SB>Sorry, I hadn't responded yet.
>
>Yes. *Some* people think I write *really* persuasive e-mails! :-)
I am glad *someone* does! :-) Congratulations to you both. May you
have a long and happy life together.
[...]
>SJ>Told me so what? Did I ever say that I thought that the YECs would win? I
>>thought it was an outside chance, but unlikely given that YEC is a minority
>>position among the general public.
SJ>that the Kansans would boot their bony butts off the School Board at the
>very next opportunity.
See above. It is now going to be *very* interesting for the new Board to
implement the proposed standards which include a claim that "religious
values" (which are believed in by more than 80% of the general public) are
in the same category as "myths" and "superstition":
"Explanations based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values,
mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally
useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific." (KANSAS
Science Education Standards, Kansas State Board of Education,
Science Sub-Committee, July 30, 1999.
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~barfield/science.htm).
As one op-ed writer asked in the Kansas City Star:
"Did the state writing committee really believe, when it equated
religious values with "superstition," "mystical inspiration" and
"myths" in its draft, that the faithful wouldn't rise up out of their
chairs?"
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3774a282.726,.html).
I am preparing a post on many of the news announcements of the creationist
KBoE members ouster.
>SJ>All along I have shared the ID movement's position that *more* (not less)
>>should be taught about evolution, namely its underlying philosophical
>>assumptions, and its many problems
>>
>>So from that perspective, this is the best possible result for *ID*,
>>even if it is bad for YECs.
>>
>>Now the new Board will have to implement the proposed standards *in
>>full*, and that will expose in full view to the public gaze, what
>>macroevolution really is, and will permit a full public debate on the
>>evidence for it, the controversies even among evolutionists about the
>>mechanism(s), and the materialistic-naturalistic assumptions underlying it.
SB>Kansas University has made a pledge to expand evolution education.
>Ignorance of evolution is what keeps creationism alive.
That would only be true if the people who knew least about evolution were
creationists. But among the general public it is the creationists know the
*most* about evolution. It is those among the general public who know the
least about evolution who most believe in it.
In my own case, for example, when I knew the least about evolution I
believed in it as just God's way of creating. That was my position when I
joined my first creation/evolution discussion group in 1994. But it was
when I started to learn more about evolution that I realised the problems in
it.
Evolution is like an old oil painting. It looks great from a distance, but
when you get up close you start to notice the cracks under the surface!
Now I have just completed the first unit in a Biology degree, which was the
major unit of evolution in the entire course, I believe even *less* about
evolution.
So I am confident that as the debate opens up and the general public
become more aware of the problems of evolution, its materialistic-
naturalistic philosophical assumptions, its implications (e.g. rape is OK),
and the *fantastic* levels of design in the cell, they will come to doubt
evolution more and more, and believe in design more and more.
SB>The
>materialistic-naturalistic assumptions are a given. You aren't going to
>gain anything by exposing what is widely known to be basic and necessary
>for science.
That case will now have to be *made* before the 80% plus of the general
public who do not believe it, not just assumed apriori by the 10% who do.
SB>Anything else is phrenology.
Susan would like to think so. But I doubt that the 80% plus of the general
public who believe in some sort of creation will like the 10% who don't,
labelling their view as "phrenology"!
In the end, Susan and her ilk will need to come up with some *arguments*
rather relying on ridicule and abuse. Ridicule and abuse might be OK on
relatively limited Internet forums like this, but when the general public start
asking questions, they will recognise it as the language of power politics
and not of science:
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the
way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official
story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
"The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
2000, p.141)
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They survived by swiftness and cunning. And then, only a moment ago,
some small arboreal animals scampered down from the trees. They became
upright and taught themselves the use of tools, domesticated other animals,
plants and fire, and devised language. The ash of stellar alchemy was now
emerging into consciousness. At an ever-accelerating pace, it invented
writing, cities, art and science, and sent spaceships to the planets and the
stars. These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do, given fifteen
billion years of cosmic evolution. It has the sound of epic myth, and rightly.
But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the science
of our time. We are difficult to come by and a danger to ourselves. But any
account of cosmic evolution makes it clear that all the creatures of our
Earth, the latest manufactures of the galactic hydrogen industry, are beings
to be cherished." (Sagan C., "Cosmos," [1980], Macdonald: London, 1981,
reprint, pp.337-339).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 06 2000 - 17:52:40 EDT