Creationists: Pot, Kettle, Black

[dianahsieh]

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here's a recent update on the intelligent design debate:

Evolution wars take a bizarre twist

In a bizarre twist to the evolution wars, supporters of intelligent design are accusing the producers of a TV science documentary series of bringing religion into US classrooms. The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, Washington, alleges that teaching materials accompanying <em>Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial</em>, broadcast on 13 November, encourage unconstitutional teaching practices.

The teaching package states:

"Q: Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?

A: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false."

According to Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, this answer favours one religious viewpoint, arguably violating the US constitution. "We're afraid that teachers might get sued," he says.

A lawyer for WGBH in Boston, Massachusetts, which produces the show, says the package is covered by the right to free speech. He declined to comment on the claim that teachers risked lawsuits.

Edited November 20, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed formatting (line-breaks)

[DavidV]

The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.

I think such a statement could be argued to be anti-religious. The existence of natural explanation for the life's origins was certainly a major influence on my becoming an atheist. Rational theories like evolution are not, in fact, compatible with religious beliefs.

I think this highlights the real root of the problem - socialized education. It's impossible avoid philosophy entirely and still communicate meaningful information about the world.

Edited November 20, 2007 by softwareNerd
Corrected quote attribution

[Inspector]

Careful, David, your quote form makes it look like Diana said that, whereas it was an article she was quoting.

While I think that evolution does not challenge faith, as such, since they can always backpedal into saying that their imaginary friend in fact was responsible for evolution, it does destroy the biblical literalist idea that the earth was created 4000 (or whatever) years ago.

[D'kian]

While I think that evolution does not challenge faith, as such, since they can always backpedal into saying that their imaginary friend in fact was responsible for evolution, it does destroy the biblical literalist idea that the earth was created 4000 (or whatever) years ago.

Religion is infinitely elastic. Comes from making so many vague statements in languages no longer living, translated, re-translated and mis-translated over the years. I do know plenty of Jews and Christians who accept both God and evolution. But then the human capacity for evasion and for holding opposing premises is, while not infinite, very substantial to say the least.

But you really don't need evolution to disqualify a literalist notion of the Bible. On several occassion it does reffer to the Earth as a circle (ie a flat construct), which is only natural given what people thought at the times and places the book got written. In Genesis, God fails to create viruses and bacteria. Now, perhaps there were no harmful bacteria in the Garden of Eden, but without any bacteria one wonders how Adam and Eve, and the animals, mannaged to digest any food at all.

Then there's that universal zoo aboard a wooden boat larger than a modern supertanker, the early attempts to build skyscrapers (along with the idea that an all-knowing God dind't know any building would fall short of the sky, never mind heaven -whatever the hell that is- by several miles), and several other things. Look up Swig's Bible stories elsewhere in the board.

[dianahsieh]

Careful, David, your quote form makes it look like Diana said that, whereas it was an article she was quoting.

Ah, even that's not quite right! The post was written by Paul (as the first line says) but posted under my username. No big deal, obviously: I'd rather be confused with Paul than with the author of teaching materials that claim that religion is compatible with evolution. I'm just amused.