I read an article today that asks "Why doesn't America believe in Evolution?". From the first paragraph, the author implicitly states his opinion that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is a backwards nut-job (as if you didn't get this from the title of the article). I don't mention this article here to defend it or to refute it; afterall, I do believe in evolution. I mention it because of its negative tone pointed - decidedly - at religion.
I must stop here and give the author credit for pointing out that many Christians regard the Biblical account of creation as a metaphor (though I would call it a myth or didactic fiction). I also feel, however, that maybe he is a little hard on "fundamentalist" Christians. I can't believe I'm about to stand up for right-wing fundamentalists (*shudder*), but I think the author really is missing the mark by insinuating that people who believe in creation are stupid or backwards. Couldn't it be that these people just have a very strong belief that differs from our own? Are they causing you harm by believing in creationism?
Further, the author quotes someone else referring to people who are undecided on the topic as "people that can be reached". So all of the rest are getting cut off? Also, the author and the people quoted refer to "battles" between creationists and evolutionists. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Can you, Mr. Evolutionist, prove to me how we got here? No, you can not. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you're shouting your position from a lofty and unstable place. I'm also not saying that creationists aren't doing the same thing. In both cases, we need something more.
Here's another article that I found today. This one talks about the oldest "computer" ever found. "Computer" is really stretching the definition to its most basic (i.e. "computer" = something that computes, as opposed to the more recent definition of an electronic device that runs software). Anyway, regardless of what you call it, it is an amazing feat and we should be impressed that something made in 80 B.C.E. 1) was so technologically advanced and 2) survived to this day.
Scientism-ists are probably frothing at the mouth to say "See what Science can do?!". However, I feel that this is a perfect example of the failure of Science. The techniques that were used to make that device as well as the knowledge needed to engineer it are simple today, but at the time it was something special. Whatever happened to that knowledge? It sank on a ship and wasn't found for almost 2100 years!
Anyway, all of this isn't very well reasoned, but I wanted to point out that the original author's article was poorly written. There was a far better way to approach that topic and present the data that it contained.
Ok.... my sermon is over.
posted by Matt @ 12:45 p.m.
7 comments
7 Comments:
Your statements are valid as long as we remove the element of political power. As one (or the other) faction gains political power, they threaten to set thier doctrine as the only 'acceptable' (meaning 'taught by the government') thought, which some might see as dangerous.
Additionally, it starts pushing the other way. The creationists are starting to use religion to state what 'is' instead of what 'should be'. Are they, then, practioners of 'Religionism?'
It's a very fine point you make. I agree with you completely that Creationsists are pushing the other way. In other posts on this site I am very clear about the fact that I think many people in the "Religion" camp are also stepping outside their bounds. You can call it "Religionism" if you want, but I call it "dogma".
In your original post, you stated that “… if we get caught up in the detail of the story, we end up missing the whole point.” I completely agree with what you’re saying here. I don’t believe your argument is so not much that one side is more correct than the other, more that neither side can be trusted to be expert in the domain of the rival. As with all conflicts between parties, the skirmishes generally form at the borders and points of intersection, which creation certainly is.
It's fascinating that the 'Creationists vs. The Evolutionist' fight is becoming such a focal battle in the American war between Secular and Sacred. I'm not sure who picked the fight in the first place, but I think it might be better examined as a study of the tactics of the two sides rather than focusing on the actual content of the debate. It’s my supposition that both camps have fought this fight with such passion that they are now venting directly from the spleen with no interference from the mind.
Your comment about neither side being trusted in the domain of the other sums up precisely the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for that! And I'm glad I was able to make my point clear.
Also, I appreciate your final comment about the nature of this argument. I agree that so many people have been arguing about this for so long that they rest on their positions only because they feel so strongly about it, not (necessarily) because they know what they're talking about or have a valid argument.
Let me make an aside here and use this discussion as a template for another "hot topic": abortion. Pro-Lifers have rallied behind the idea that abortion is murder because, well, everyone believes murder is wrong, even the staunchest leftists. Pro-Choicers, on the other hand, say that abortion isn't murder because the infant is a part of the mother and/or because the child couldn't live on its own if it is separated (for example, if a child is born *very* prematurely and dies, we don't consider this murder. By the same token, a baby that is "delivered" *very* early - i.e. "abortion" - is also not murder).
What we now have is an argument over whether or not abortion is murder. BUT THIS ISN'T THE POINT! Effectively, the argument is over "when does a fertilized egg become a person?", which then answers the question of whether or not abortion is murder. So people get so tied up in "Abortion is murder" (or not) that they miss the basis of the argument about the beginnings of life.
So, I say, let's stop arguing over whether or not abortion is murder and sit down and agree on the point at which a fertilized egg has the legal right to life. Is it at conception? Is it after the third trimester? Whenever we - as a society - agree that this point is, then we should give the child all legal rights given to a child that has been born, such as a name, a Social Security Number, etc. Heck, it'd probably do us some good to give parents of not-borns (hehe... like "new-borns", but not!) social assistance like maternity leave and/or welfare after this date has been reached. That way pregnant mothers don't need to be working and will be better able to prepare for the first weeks and months of Jr. living "on his own".
Anyway, that's a huge aside, but my point here is that we need to really analyze the things on which we disagree to make sure we're arguing about the right things, not some straw-man argument that (generally) politicians have made up to make their points.
It's funny. When you wrote this, I was thinking alot about the abortion debate. But it wasn't really related to this discussion. (I think it's an issue that exists because it's a good issue to talk about when passions need flaring.)
It's funny. We're talking about politics. Talk about something that is always trying to assert itself into domains where it does not belong!
Or does it belong there? Is it government's job to decide when we should consider the scientific or the spiritual side of an argument?
Ha! Fantastic! I never thought about it, but you're absolutely right! Politicians make their careers out of doing things outside their own domains. To your point, abortion is one of these very things. There are a lot of problems that pop up when a group of people feel that they know what is better for someone else than they do. Abortion and gay marriage are two obvious examples. I mean, the people against abortions aren't getting them and the people against gay marriage probably won't marry a homosexual. Therefore, they are against things that don't affect them at all (IMHO). I suppose they say that these things damage society and - as a result - they are impacted. But that's a judgement call that I feel they are not allowed to make (being that they've made it clear that they won't be getting abortions and marrying homosexuals).
So what IS the realm of politicians?
I've been thinking about the question you just posed and I got to thinking... The government has a National Science Foundation to advise it on matters of science. Why does the government not have a National Spiritual Foundation, or National Religion Foundation to advise it on matters of ethics and morals? I presume it's a separation of church and state thing, but couldn't it be called "National Ethics Foundation" or something?
Now THERE'S something we need!
A National Ethics Foundation! That's a fantastic idea.
Of course, we know what would happen. The National Ethics Foundation would publish a report stating that something is unethical, and then the politicians who are doing what ever was said to be unethical would immediately accuse the National Ethics Foundation of being biased in favor of their rival.
I'm thinking about the 'Stem Cell Harvesting' debate going on in the States right now. It's interesting because the scientists are working so hard to find a solution that meets the ethical guidelines of the politicians. It would be interesting to see how that debate would play out in a political vaccum (that is, if it had no impact at all on, say, the abortion debate.)
Post a Comment
<< Home