Caught a showing of “Inherit the Wind” on cable. It is both amazing, and amazingly depressing, how timely the subject matter of that film and play is. As Spencer Tracy speaks passionately of a time when narrow-minded religious dogma will actually cause progress to be reversed, one considers that people in power are opposed to everything from stem cell research to a woman’s right to choose to global warming to…yes…Darwin’s theory.
Meantime creationists are trying to sneak Genesis back into the schoolroom through the notion of Intelligent Design, trying to position it as being as equally valid as Darwin, when of course all they’re really trying to do is put the Bible back in the classroom.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, progress is an illusion…and human progress doubly so.
PAD
(PS–Uh, guys…please don’t start telling me that the Scopes Monkey Trial was a set up by the ACLU and that local businessmen put Scopes up to it and that he probably didn’t even actually teach evolution. I know all that. None of it detracts from the fact that “Inherit the Wind” is a brilliant drama in its own right with a lot to say to modern thinking…or lack thereof.)
• 
Here’s today’s local article. It gives some choice quotes from some of the school board members:
“Three weeks after Alan Bonsell was appointed to the Dover school board, he said one of his objectives was to bring creationism into the science classroom. Bonsell, described as a creationist who believes God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, wanted to “bring prayer and faith back in the school” and believed that the “Bible and creationism” should be a “fair and balanced part of the curriculum.””
“School board member William Buckingham, in defending the Dover policy, said, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” He called the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state “a myth” and described a biology textbook as “laced with Darwinism.” He objected to the mention of Charles Darwin’s name and said the textbook lacked a balanced presentation on evolution because it did not contain “the theory of creationism with God as the creator of all life.” After a school grounds employee burned a large mural depicting the evolution of man, Buckingham said, “I gleefully watched it burn,” according to a teacher.”
Isn’t that sweet? The people who claim to be for “fair and balanced” teaching are “gleefully” burning anything that contradicts their views.
Don’t tell me these people aren’t working towards a theocracy.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/112945457499050.xml&coll=1
BTW, last week, the attorney for the defense accused one of the plaintiff’s witnesses of being a “card carrying member of the ACLU” and tried to question her about ACLU allegedly defending child pornography. Fortunately, the judge had the sense to rule those questions irrelevant.
I was pondering the efforts of the anti-science crowd the other day when I realized just how terrifying it would be if the lazy thinking evident in the efforts to put ID forth as science were to spread to other sciences.
One of the primary arguments I’ve read over and over again in support of ID boils down to, “I just can’t comprehend how it could have happened randomly, so it MUST have been Go… er… a higher power.”
Now, how scary would it be if “It’s inconceivable that a man would just up and eat his family, so the devil must have made him do it,” were an acceptable legal defense? Or, how would anybody like it if their doctor were to say, “I’ve never seen this disease before, and I have no idea how you got it. God must have made you sick.”
-Rex Hondo-
I imagine the future of science classes in this country becoming something like this:
Teacher: “Well, the eye is too complicated to have occurred randomly, so it must have been designed intelligently. This concludes biology for year. Now, onto astronomy: There are still numerous holes in the heliocentric theory. Newton’s laws of gravitation become too complicated to work out when you add a third gravitational body. Even he gave up trying to do the math for four or more bodies. So it must be intelligently designed.”
Billy raises his hand.
Teacher: “Yes, Billy?”
Billy: “If we’re all intelligently designed, why is a baby’s head so much larger than the birth canal? Why do we have appendixes? Why do men have nipples?”
Teacher: “Billy, did you take your ritalin today?”
Billy: “I’m not taking ritalin.”
Teacher: “You are now.”
Billy never asks another question in class again for the rest of his life.
If the world exists because of intelligent design, how do you explain Pauly Shore’s career?
PAD
If the world exists because of intelligent design, how do you explain Pauly Shore’s career?
Witchcraft! Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live! Burn him! BUUUUURRRRRNNNN HIM!!!
-Rex Hondo-
With all the creationist theories and counterarguments of “Who created the creator”, I’m reminded of what Douglas Adams said (which I read reprinted in “The Salmon of Doubt”). Something about the universe flowing from the bottom-up rather than the top-down. It was a brilliant speech.
Pauly Shore was basically born into the business, like certain rich kids who use their status as legacies to get into Yale.
A better question is how do you explain Rob Schneider’s career?
I was pondering the efforts of the anti-science crowd the other day when I realized just how terrifying it would be if the lazy thinking evident in the efforts to put ID forth as science were to spread to other sciences.
Forget other sciences — think about having it spread to the field of law. If the rules of evidence in science have to be changed to allow supernatural phenomena, then demonic possession and homunculi automatically become legitimate legal defenses and prosecutors despair of ever winning cases.
TWL
“A better question is how do you explain Rob Schneider’s career?”
He’s good friends with Adam Sandler, who funds all of his movies.
All right then, how do you explain Adam Sandler’s career?
Well, Tim there’s an historical precedence for what you described. During the Salem Witch trials, the local tribunals permitted the introduction of “spectral evidence,” that is the idea that once you make a pact with the devil, he could appear before his victims in your form. That only your accusers could see the devil floating around looking you was considered proof that you had made an infernal pact.
As soon as the colonial government brought in outside judges who didn’t believe in spectral evidence, the trials came to a halt.
Naturally, our legal system is already not immune to the introduction of pseudosceintific evidence, insofar as there are judges who do not understand what consitutes scientifically-accepted information. For example, while polygraphs are not admissable in American courts of law, our government relies on them for pursuit of spies and criminals and pumps money into their use, even though they do not work as lie detectors.
Another example from John Stossel’s Junk Science program from several years ago involved a dentist who claimed that he could see bite marks on corpses that no one else could see when using a UV light. At least one person was wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for muder on this quack’s testimony, even though the marks he saw were not and could not have been bite marks, because it would’ve been anatomically impossible someone to make them in the way they alleged. The man sent to prison was eventually released, but his life was destroyed.
“All right then, how do you explain Adam Sandler’s career?”
I have no answer for this question. 🙁
“All right then, how do you explain Adam Sandler’s career?”
Opera Man…turning 3 minutes of good comedey into major bankroll. The entertainment equivilent of inventions like Makin Bacon.
“Forget other sciences — think about having it spread to the field of law. If the rules of evidence in science have to be changed to allow supernatural phenomena, then demonic possession and homunculi automatically become legitimate legal defenses and prosecutors despair of ever winning cases.”
CSID Dover
Somebody should suggest teaching the Islamic version of creation in science classes.
People may think it’s a joke about ID/Creationism reaching into other sciences, but it isn’t; there’s an established presence that is aimed at overturning the Big Bang and relativity. Not to mention the AIDS/HIV deniers…
Roger, that’s already in the mix as most creationists don’t know the difference between the big bang and evolution.