|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
October 7, 2008 - 6:02am.
Just before the vice-presidential debate, one of my more jaded and cynical colleagues proposed this question for Gov. Sarah Palin: "I hope they ask her how old she thinks the earth is." I'm not sure if asking this question is any fairer or more germane than asking the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, if he really believes in the virgin birth. Or asking erstwhile presidential hopeful Mitt Romney whether he shares the Mormon belief that Native Americans are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. American politicians talk often about their faith, but the details of their particular brands of religion are usually ignored, which is consistent with our tradition of separation of church and state. Palin's case may be different, however, since she was chosen for the Republican ticket largely because of her appeal to the religious right, a segment of the electorate that often advocates an active connection between private faith and public policy. Palin, for example, during her campaign for the Alaskan governorship clearly stated her support for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes, as reported by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. She subsequently softened her position and, as governor, never advocated the teaching of creationism. Nevertheless, this kind of thinking makes many scientists and educators uncomfortable. Even scientists who have found ways to mesh their faith in God with their faith in science become uneasy at the presentation of creationism and evolution in public classrooms as two more or less equal alternatives which students can choose between. This isn't an entirely theoretical issue. Here in Texas, the State Board of Education is currently revising the curriculum standards for all public school science classes. The New York Times reports that 7 of the 15 members of the board are "creationists." The board's chairman, dentist Don McLeroy, believes in "two systems of science," creationist and naturalist, and he believes that public schools should present them to students as equal alternatives. The first draft of the new curriculum standards describes in considerable detail the benchmarks that all students should achieve at various grade levels and in various fields of scientific study. For example, high school students should be able to "compare and contrast similarities and differences of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells." But the standards also include strangely unscientific language about "purported forces outside of nature," as well as provisions that many believe will encourage unscientific attention on alleged "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. In response to the draft, at least 840 scientists and educators have signed a statement produced by the "21st Century Science Coalition" that discourages the substitution of supernatural explanations for any mysteries as yet unresolved by science. In short, through the fall and spring a battle is shaping up in Texas over the definition of science and its place in public classrooms. Since Texas is the nation's second-largest purchaser of textbooks, the implications for other states are significant. Here's a reasonable proposition: Science is about understanding the natural world in strictly rational terms; religion is non-rational, and it derives meaning from revelation and faith. Science is a proper object of study in public schools; religion is the domain of the church, the private school, and the human heart. But many evangelical and fundamental Protestants -- more than 60 percent, by some polls -- believe that private faith should significantly influence public policy. If Palin shares that view then the precise details of her faith are relevant, including her views on teaching creationism, the connection between the "end times" and state of the Middle East, and the weight of God's hand on world events. Maybe someone should ask her.
(John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. E-mail: jcrisp(at)delmar.edu)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
Syndicate  User login
 |
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
RichardKanePA Be careful, to
Submitted by RichardKanePA on October 7, 2008 - 8:35am.RichardKanePA
Be careful, to condemn mixing faith with politics you are inadvertently criticizing Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa.
I am not worried that she believes in Creationism, but that she believes that the earth consists of one big war between God and Satan, and how that belief could effect her foreign policy if she ever becomes President.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, science has proven that their is something a little missing in the scientific explanations for how we got here.
RichardKanePA
Personal opinions about
Submitted by Malibu on October 7, 2008 - 8:22am.Personal opinions about creation or evolution should not be a part of this election. If our V.P. believes in witches or satan or both, it should have nothing to do with foreign policies. But we both know that it will.
In my world, evolution has been proven to be factual. You can believe what you want. The problem is when does life begin. That will divide mankind until we blow each other up. I worry more about when life stops.
Malcolm
The leader or potential
Submitted by JerryG on October 7, 2008 - 9:22am.The leader or potential leader of the free world, solely for the purposes of credibility on the world stage, should not be someone who will be perceived as having views that are on the fringe. We ridicule Ahmadinejad for his belief that the 12th Imam will miraculousy rise from the well into which he fell centuries ago. How do you think believing that man and dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously will play in the same circles? Or that the earth is a mere 6000 or so years old?
If you want America to be a theocracy in which our domestic and international policy decisions are based solely on biblical principles then perhaps the McCain/Palin ticket is for you. If you want the rule of law, with the constitution as its cornestone to continue to prevail then the choice is obvious.
Here in Florida the courts struck down a proposed constitutional amendment to teach creationism alongside evolution. Thank God! :-)
Jerry I agree with you. The
Submitted by Malibu on October 7, 2008 - 9:53am.Jerry I agree with you. The interview with Rick Warren should have been unconstitutional but both candidates wanted to prove they were Christians. More people every year are looking at the bible as a series of allegories, more than the history of the world.
I am worried about the belief that the end of days are approaching forcing people to pray rather than learn or even vote. Superstition and a constitutional republic cannot work together. I've been a Republican for many years and never remember this religious subject ever being a campaign issue. I'm glad to hear that Florida was brave enough to keep creationism out of the schools.
Malcolm
Creationism is based on
Submitted by Janice on October 7, 2008 - 10:46am.Creationism is based on faith; evolution is based on scientific evidence. If a person believes the dogma of creationism (such as the age of the earth is 6000 years), they are turning their back on hard scientific evidence based on the empirical research.
Creationists turn their backs on scientific evidence and embrace their beliefs - rational or not, rather than believing empirical research which bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality.
Having someone in a high position of leadership who embraces their beliefs over truths based on empirical research and hard scientific evidence is dangerous. They are not rational thinkers; instead embracing what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence shows. We tired this with Bush, and his beliefs took us into a war with no purpose and where we had no business being. His beliefs also have bankrupted our country, and taken away our standing in the world arena. I firmly believe that there is no place in the leadership of our country for people who embrace their beliefs over hard evidence. Our country, founded by some of the greatest thinkers who have ever lived, is based on the separation of church and state. This is good. It is how it should be. Someone who holds beliefs, like the world is 6000 years old is not capable of rational contemplation because they hold their beliefs above scientifically proven facts.
Personally, I want a leader who does not hold irrational beliefs as personal facts in the face of physical evidence to the contrary.
Whose version of creationism
Submitted by Flapsaddle on October 7, 2008 - 1:01pm.Whose version of creationism do we teach? The Judeo-Christian one found in the book of Genesis? Would communities with a large Muslim community - Flint and Detroit, for instance - be entitled to have the Koranic account(s) taught? What about the Hindu version? American Indian? Japanese? Chinese? Australian aboriginal? Tales from the Graeco-Roman pantheon?
As a believer of the Methodist persuasion, I prefer that we follow advice Jesus gave to the Pharisees who sought to entrap him on the question of paying taxes: Render unto Caesar and unto God their respective dues, and the public schools are Caesar's domain, not God's. As a physical scientist, I prefer that we deal with the objective in matters of science - "Truth, even if Heaven falls!" - and have them not intrude on the spiritual.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Later in life, even Newton
Submitted by griff on October 7, 2008 - 1:42pm.Later in life, even Newton himself admitted the flaws in his theory - which is, by the way - still an unproven theory. That's not to say you're not free to believe it, but it remains a theory.
I'm not sure where the 6000 year old earth came from, but I know of no one that believes this, including myself. I've heard it bandied about, but I don't believe it's mainstream Christian thinking. It seems to be more of a convenient catch-all rationale for anti-Christian rhetoric. Believing in creationism doesn't automatically mean you believe in the 6000 year old version.
I believe in neither, and could really care less one way or the other. I care not where we came from, but where we're going - and where we're going is none too pleasant for Christian and atheist alike.
This country was founded upon the principles of freedom and liberty - religious, economic, and personal. Our system of government was designed in a way that would limit or eliminate the opportunity for religious fanatics to gain control of this nation.
Why do we persist down this road? We have relinquished control of this government and the institutions designed to negate these issues, we have tossed aside the wisdom of the Founders, and have no one to blame but ourselves. We have devolved into mindless, hateful and intolerant sheep, poked and prodded along by the Establishment Media and their Hegelian Architects.
Divide and Conquer. Race - Gender - Religion. They mean nothing. We are born, and we die. What happens in between is up to you. A starving atheist is just as hungry as a starving Christian. Get over it, get beyond it, don't allow them to control us with it. We are a human family - let's start acting like one. Please.
The Ussher chronology is
Submitted by Flapsaddle on October 7, 2008 - 2:08pm.The Ussher chronology is based on the research of seventeenth century Anglican minister in Dublin. IMCO, it is not "Biblical"; however, it has been seized upon by literalists as proof of the Genesis account.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Thanks. Interesting, at the
Submitted by griff on October 7, 2008 - 2:30pm.Thanks. Interesting, at the least. For those intereted in esoterica and the ancient Mystery Schools, I recently finished a book entitled The Secret History of the World - as laid down by the secret societies (2008, Mark Booth, The Overlook Press, 414 pp). While this particular "belief" wasn't mentioned at all, it was an extremely well-written and interesting read.
A century or so ago,
Submitted by Flapsaddle on October 7, 2008 - 3:30pm.A century or so ago, pyramidology was all the craze and the votaries thereof claimed that certain distance measurements within the Great Pyramid of Khufu correlated to Biblical chronology and that, by extension, the time of the end of days could be predicted as well.
I sometimes wonder if many an obsession with the beginnings and the endings are simply due to people not wanting to put up with the here-and-now.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
That's an interesting
Submitted by griff on October 7, 2008 - 5:40pm.That's an interesting observation. I can't rightly blame anyone for not wanting to deal with the here-and-now, but that's the cruel and indifferent mechanics of time.
What is actually known about our origins, and that of our universe, is microscopic in comparison to what we don't. I think we fancy ourselves smarter than we are on such matters.
Some would argue, and with good cause, that mankind was once far more advanced intellectually and spiritually than we are today; that we are actually devolving as opposed to evolving.
The misuse of the word
Submitted by gazelle1929 on October 8, 2008 - 7:59am.The misuse of the word "theory":
All to often, here and elsewhere, we read that evolution is "only" a theory. That's because in many people's mindset a theory means a guess or hunch or a speculation. This is not true when scientists use the word:
"According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time." (from the wikipedia.org entry on theory)
Newton's theory of universal gravatation is NOT an unproven theory. Nor is evolution.
If we are going to use terms of art (one of which is the scientific definition of theory) we owe it to the readers to explain exactly what you mean.
Good points Flapsaddle, and
Submitted by Malibu on October 7, 2008 - 1:47pm.Good points Flapsaddle, and many states want to teach Genesis and nothing else. Many Americans feel that Christians are in the majority therefore the words of Jesus are to be recognized as is done in a Democracy. The fact that this would be very near a theocracy matters not to the majority.
I have recognized a problem within our federal government that choices are not to be offered to the citizens as everything would be smoother if the government make the decisions across the nation. In Utah, it is assumed that American Indians are the children of Israel. How they handle that in their schools could prove interesting.
It always seems as if the religions are determined to divide the citizens in all the nations. I was taught that this is not done in America, and I was taught wrong.
Malcolm
Any intelligent Alaskan or
Submitted by barak on October 8, 2008 - 8:10am.Any intelligent Alaskan or Texan KNOWS that Native Americans are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Chief Running Lox starred in the movie "Blazing Saddles", and his immortal words "Loz im gehen" will echo forever in the annals of speeches that opened the frontier to Mormons, Neanderthal Alaskans, and emotionally disturbed retards who for the most part settled in Texas.
The good Chief Running Lox later went on to found the DAR (he was famous for his drag outfit) and the group happily known as "Children of a Lesser God", or more commonly "Evangelicals." In his later years he expressed regret that his slowest child, H.W. Bush (famous for his ability to hide in a tumbling Mesquite Bush--thus his name) was not euthanized in the Great Teepee, but instead was left to simmer in the family tea-pee where he grew up full of p & v.
The problems arise when one seeks an intelligent Texan or Alaskan. They are rarer than a steak waved over a fire for two seconds and dropped on a tin plate.
And this is what will be one heartbeat away from the office that hopefully will never be occupied by the oldest candidate, the most corrupt candidate, and the slimiest candidate to ever seek the presidential seat in the Oval Orifice.
Lord help us...