>Stephen:
> >>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.
Thank you! we have a good start on it.
>[...]
>
> >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).
Christianity is a personal belief and a religious value. So what? It ain't
science. It was never meant to be science. I doubt you would care for a
science based on Hinduism. Or would you? it's materialism-naturalism you
detest--not religion. Maybe Hindu science would be preferable to the
secular science we have now.
If that phraseology offended the Kansas Board, why didn't they just delete
just that sentence? Why delete evolution itself?
>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.
creationist only know a false version of evolution. A child of three
wouldn't believe in *that* version of evolution. The general public really
knows almost nothing about evolution. So where do you get your 80% figure?
Usually all the public ever hears is the phony creationist version. That
needs to stop. I've heard otherwise well-educated people parroting Morris's
dishonest version of thermodynamics, for example.
>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!
If you continue to pursue your biology studies I'd like to here more about
those cracks :-) What cracks did you run into in the class you just finished?
>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.
evolution says rape is ok? oh, yeah, sure it does (I roll my eyes)
>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.
do they not believe it? Are you sure? I agree that a lot of people can't
tell the difference between quantum physics and crystal power but I don't
think it's 80% quite yet.
>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"!
you have lifted my argument and slid other meanings under it. *Science*
must have the assumption that the world is a regular, natural place where
you can trust your senses and observations. No miracles are allowed in
science. That doesn't mean that miracles don't happen--perhaps they do,
I've never seen a supernatural one--but you can't say electricity is a
miracle and not bother to investigate further, not and have a computer to
discuss it with, not and hope to learn anything new. 80% (a figure highly
inflated) of the world is not the kind of creationist you are. You
should look again at the way the figures actually break down. Most people
want evolution taught. To get your figure, you are lumping in the people
who don't want it taught with the people who want it taught alongside some
version of creationism. You've even included the people who want
creationism taught but not in science class in order to puff up your figure
to 80%. However, that's why we (meaning Americans) have the 1st amendment.
It's to prevent the dominant religion from rolling over the smaller
religions. The Hindus don't want to pay tax money to have their children
given a Christian education. Neither do the Muslims, the Buddhists, the
atheists or the Unitarians, for that matter. ID and other more silly
versions of creationism are a feature of only the Christian religion (and
don't bother to tell me there are dozens of non-Christians who believe in
creationism. The creationist propaganda machine is excellent and bound to
rake in a few non-Christians.)
>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:
that's why education is so important. People need to be taught the *real*
version of evolution. They need to hear the refutations of the creationist
garbage that floats around--"it's *only* a theory"! That works because most
people simply don't know what scientists mean by the word "theory." They
should find out. It will at least rob you of *that* argument!
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 21:24:45 EDT