Darwin’s Celebrity Status

Published on December 8, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

With eighty to ninety percent of Americans admitting to believing in God, why on earth is the religious right so uptight that they continue to attack Evolution? Even if evolution were a major unit in biology classes — it isn’t — students couldn’t care less and far from brainwashed and certainly don’t juxtapose it as a challenge to their religion.

So why do the fundamentalists keep playing into the ghostly hands of Darwin by giving him undue publicity? Haven’t they learned by now that bad press in entertainment and books only lead to tsunami of interest? And by the way, what’s so terribly incompatible with the idea that the seeds of Adam and Eve were planted in primal cells that eventuated into a unique ape and then culminated as proud homo sapiens?

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Dec 10, 2005

singrdave: It wouldn't fit in with a literalist interpretation, that's true. Many, dare I say most, Christians these days aren't hard-line literalist.

That's no judgement on those that are, mind you, but you'd be right in saying that ID doesn't jive with Creationism. That's what annoys me the most about people who want to turn the whole ID debate into the Scopes monkey trial.

stevendedalus

on Dec 10, 2005

That's what annoys me the most about people who want to turn the whole ID debate into the Scopes monkey trial.

ID per se is nothing new; philosophers and theologians have been grappling with the essence and mystery of creation since Plato, Anselm and Augustine. But the problem is the attempt to make it an integral unit of science which is not related, and on the other end creationists do exploit ID for their own gain.

bakerstreet

on Dec 10, 2005

That IS the problem. I'll give you that. A subsequent problem is when millions of people half-hear a description of ID and then wander onto the Internet and characterize it as creationism and poison the pond of scientists who would really like to entertain the idea that there might be more at work than chance.

That's why I said your blog could go both ways. Creationists hijack ID, granted, but staid theorists also hijack the paranoia to taint research they find threatening. If ID robs any discussion of scientific merit, then all you have to do is tag something with the stigma of ID to rid yourself of it.

I think science would do better to not entertain any opinion on either, frankly. If people want to try to prove scientifically that God made the earth in 6 days, let them. Debate them, sure, you don't have to accept their findings, but it seems crass to say that any point couldn't be scientifically tested before it actually has been.

stevendedalus

on Dec 10, 2005

but it seems crass to say that any point couldn't be scientifically tested before it actually has been.

Crass? Well, okay, granted, if hysterical about it; yet there is no logic to the argument in the first place.

bakerstreet

on Dec 10, 2005

"Well, okay, granted, if hysterical about it; yet there is no logic to the argument in the first place. "

There didn't appear to be much logic to the idea that the world was round, either, or that the earth revolves around the sun. The opposite seemed self-apparent.

The problem is vantage point. As we acheived the ability to see the universe from a different perspective, the obvious became less so. It would be the height of unscientific behavior to claim that we have reached some pinnacle of perspective.

I personally don't adhere to creationism, but I wouldn't feel very scientific ruling out something offhand after hundreds of years of scientific convention being overturned over and over. All I can do is choose to believe based on the data at hand, and allow for surprises in the future.

The last thing we should do is reject the testing of a hypothesis as not being "science" in knee jerk fashion, as is being done with theories of Intelligent Design.

Dr Guy

on Dec 10, 2005

The problem is vantage point.

That is it in a nutshell. The rest is just window dressing.

stevendedalus

on Dec 11, 2005

testing of a hypothesis as not being "science" in knee jerk fashion, as is being done with theories of Intelligent Design.

We are in the pit of definitions; "hypothesis is usually attributed to scientific data; it is not enough to say that because the eye is so complex that it must have been predesigned supranaturally--why not accept natural selection and let it go at that? [see my blog on "Natural Selecton is Design"]

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!