This is so freaking wrong!

[glover7]

I'm sorry if that title is juvenile. I don't really care, but I figure that apologies sort of formalize this whole topic, which is about my complete indignation at something that happened on campus today. UGA campus.

There were some people handing out copies of Darwin's The Origin of Species around our student center. I thought this was absolutely brilliant, another perspective provided to counter the Gideons who, although they are nice, don't really offer any other sort of views on religion.

When the woman handed me my copy, I asked what group she was doing this for, and she answered that she was "providing a different viewpoint" and that I should read the introduction.

Because I'm unfamiliar with Christian evangelicals, I was unaware of the connotation of Ray Comfort's name on the front of the book. He's the author of the introduction, you know.

So I started reading the preface, which detailed exactly why Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong (supposedly, evolution is as random as a book coming together and writing itself, editing itself, and cutting its own pages) and furthermore why atheism is bad ("God" imbues humans with a sense of morality, so atheists disregard all morals, attributing behavior instead to natural instincts).

Now, barring the sheer idiocy of comparing evolution to a book, due to the nature of living matter and nonliving matter and -- oh, I don't know -- the fact that selective adaptation isn't random but is an extremely logical pattern, one can see that this attached preface is a barbarous piece of propagandizing media.

Personally, I tore out the introduction and gave it back to the group that was handing out the pamphlets. I don't want some intelligent design idiocy tainting my pristine copy of Origin.

I just wanted to rant, but feel free to give your views on the situation, of course. This is a forum, after all.

[Babbalanja]

I remember hearing about this version of the Origin, with the creationist preface. It's a perverse stunt.

But let's stop pretending that this has anything whatsoever to do with scientific inquiry. This entire matter simply reminds us that religious belief, even in the 21st century, is based on denying reality. Any old heathen can affirm the validity of species evolution just because the evidence is copious. But what better way to demonstrate the depth of your faith than to deny the validity of such a robust scientific construct?

This is the weird irrationalism that passes for piety in our day. And people should be ashamed of it.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

Yeah, I heard about that. . . . . .

It is quite apaulling. Though Origin of Species is in the public domain, and thus anyone can do what they want with it, this is just pure disrespect for the author. What if a group of atheists got together and released a new edition of the Bible, with an introduction in it, making arguments against the very contents of the book!

If Darwin is so wrong, then why not write something useful and publish it in your own book! It might then give the ID movement some credibility instead of them hiding around in other people's books. But what am I saying? The reason they do that is because they don't have anything to offer and they know it. "Offering a different percpective"? Bull****. They're not offering anything except outdated creationist nonsense.

How about this; next time, get at least half-a-scientist to write your introduction. Any reasonable person with half-a-brain (and a familiarity with the name of course) will know that Ray Comfort's introduction is no more a scientific refutation than Ben Stein's nonsense documentary was.

Arrghh is just annoys me how the ID movement try to present themselves as "going against the standard convention in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus" or "offering an alternative percpective" and whatnot. Rebellion against convention is not an end-in-itself, and it's not the reason why Galileo developed his theories. You see, the reason why real scientists dismiss ID, is not because it opposes the leading biological theory, but because it has proven itself in the first years of its existence to be a purely reactionary political movement with absolutely nothing scientific to offer to humanity. It's not that the scientific community is opposed to opposition to evolution or something like that, but they certainly are opposed to political propiganda disguised as science.

Okay, seems like my rant was even longer than the thread starters

[Lokasenna]

How... odd...

It seems rather strange to encounter a copy of Origin with a creationist preface... I really don't see how that helps their cause.

Speaking as someone who is both a committed Christian and an ardent believer in evolution (the two are not mutually exclusive!), I think its all a bit daft really. I find over-zealous evangelicals and militant aetheists equally distasteful, though that is only my opinion.

Their argument about creation resembling a book is rather telling: if they applied it logically to the Bible, they would see that as a text it has had numerous authors, revisions, cuts, changes, edits and reinterpretations; it did not just come together. If the theory of evolution is fallible by that logic, then so is the Bible. I believe the Bible is a holy book written by people who were inspired by God, but ultimately it is still written by flawed, imperfect human beings who as often as not got things wrong. Attempting to censor any view of our world, either spiritually or scientifically, limits us intellectually as a species.

[Babbalanja]

Attempting to censor any view of our world, either spiritually or scientifically, limits us intellectually as a species.

Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

Whoaa whoa whoa, now I was certainly p'oed about all this ID nonsense, but saying that it should be censored is going wayyyy too far.

It doens't matter if they're wrong or not, there are so many "wrong" ideas floating around out there, that to censor every single one of them would be to turn the government into an ideological state.

I don't care if they're calling magical ponies science, they shouldn't be censored. Yes it is nonsense and virtually useless to our society, and a step-back if people begin to accept it, but once you start giving the government an authority in what is true and objective, then you don't know where it'll go.

It is society's responsibility to retaliate against nonsense like this and not the governments. That is why we have public figures such as Richard Dawkins out there refuting this stuff. Believe me, government censorship will only lead people to feel more inclined to support it.

To censor anyone's ideas is an all out infringment on their rights. What if it turned out a particular scientific theory was dead wrong? Should we get the government to 'punish' those induviduals for spreading false ideas?

This kind of talk of censorship of religion is just as extreme and irrational as when fundimentalists talk about censorship of evolution. We have two conflicting world-views, both of them utterly convinced that theirs is right, so what do you do? Use political force for one side to get its way? Or use reason and logic to convince the general population that it is right. No idea ever got anywhere or became any more valid when the government censored its opposers. I would prefer a hundred times over an ignorant society, over one in which certain ideas are forbidden.


That said, I do think there is some kind of great injustice in them publishing a purely biased introduction to Origin of Species. Believe me, I'm fine with them publishing a whole entire book of their nonsense, but it's just not right when you infringe your nonsense into somebody else's work, no matter how long they've been dead. This public domain buisness is complex, but we need somehow for original works to be protected.

[glover7]

Anybody know why this was removed from the religion forum??

[JBI]

Still, in a sense you get enough introductions by scholars bashing the authors of several works, as well as the works themselves (Harold Bloom, for instance, in an intro to 'Anatomy of Criticism' decided he needed to take a few smacks at Frye in order to push himself forward) and really this is nothing new.

Then again, it is annoying - luckily though, I'm not American - from my experiences in university, though this perhaps is limited to my university specifically, or I am just blind, here the university doesn't seem to function as such a political entity as say it does in the States, where universities are intensely political, or in Europe where they are even more so. The closest thing I've seen was 4 days ago, a bunch of people were sitting in front of the major library shouting out about pro-choice while most people just walked by without caring.

Somehow though, a stint like this doesn't surprise me - I find it kind of comical though how any person who writes could take themselves seriously in arguing that Darwin is merely a constructed lie, whereas in contrast, stare at the Bible as the word of God.

Then again, you are in (on?) the Bible Belt.

Anybody know why this was removed from the religion forum??

Because it isn't particularly discussing religion or religious texts.

[DanielBenoit]

Somehow though, a stint like this doesn't surprise me - I find it kind of comical though how any person who writes could take themselves seriously in arguing that Darwin is merely a constructed lie, whereas in contrast, stare at the Bible as the word of God.

Yeah I know! Having had tons of experience and familliarity with fundimentalism (my dad thinks that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, that the apocolaypse is coming that the antichrist will most likely be Obama, and that this will all occur "Left Behind" style []), I have seen its hypocracies up and down.

What really annoys me is how fundimentalists can be such skeptics when it comes to evolution, but then be absolute adherers to faith when it comes to their religion. They just pick and choose.

[Babbalanja]

I don't care if they're calling magical ponies science, they shouldn't be censored. Yes it is nonsense and virtually useless to our society, and a step-back if people begin to accept it, but once you start giving the government an authority in what is true and objective, then you don't know where it'll go.

But Daniel, the government already does have the authority to say what you can and can't teach in public schools. If the Discovery Institute wants to hawk its screeds to the unwary, that's swell. But hijacking the educational system isn't part of anyone's first-amendment rights.

This kind of talk of censorship of religion is just as extreme and irrational as when fundimentalists (sic) talk about censorship of evolution.

Daniel, amigo, I'm not talking about book-burning here. I'm talking about keeping religious ideas out of public school.

But since you mentioned, I think there's a big difference between religious people trying to suppress a well-supported scientific construct and rational people trying to get society at large to give up delusions and magical thinking.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

But Daniel, the government already does have the authority to say what you can and can't teach in public schools. If the Discovery Institute wants to hawk its screeds to the unwary, that's swell. But hijacking the educational system isn't part of anyone's first-amendment rights.

Daniel, amigo, I'm not talking about book-burning here. I'm talking about keeping religious ideas out of public school.

But since you mentioned, I think there's a big difference between religious people trying to suppress a well-supported scientific construct and rational people trying to get society at large to give up delusions and magical thinking.

Regards,

Istvan

Ooooh, don't I look like a foolish political sign-waver

Well then I'm totally on par with you.

[JBI]

Yeah I know! Having had tons of experience and familliarity with fundimentalism (my dad thinks that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, that the apocolaypse is coming that the antichrist will most likely be Obama, and that this will all occur "Left Behind" style []), I have seen its hypocracies up and down.

What really annoys me is how fundimentalists can be such skeptics when it comes to evolution, but then be absolute adherers to faith when it comes to their religion. They just pick and choose.

That's not what I am saying - I don't care what people believe in to be honest - it's just, I am concerned with the fact that people can actually take this seriously as a work of textual criticism.

[Lokasenna]

Oh, please.

Would we be 'censoring' the poor creationists by forbidding them to teach such rot to children? How tolerant would we be expected to be if the pseudoscience du jour were the racial superiority of whites?

Pseudoscience isn't just harmless wacky fun. Thousands of people were lobotomized in the days before people expected testing to find out the long-term effects of such so-called miracle cures. Look up the name Lysenko: this guy sold the Soviets an anti-Darwinian biological hoax that deep sixed their agricultural program and starved millions.

This is about religion getting out of control, plain and simple. They have every right to expect censorship of their pseudoscientific ideas, because they're wrong.

Regards,

Istvan

Can you really justify saying that creationists are wrong in absolute terms? You are a human being, and thus your subjective, highly limited perception is your only means of deciphering something as complex as creation itself. If one can accept the hypothetical idea of a divine being, then the rules of reality have to go out of the metaphorical window; essentially, I'm saying that while science may suggest one course, why does a god have to be bound by that? That's why its so hard to win an argument that strays onto theological - the whole thing rests its credibility on being entirely unprovable.

Frankly, I find censorship rather sinister. Yes, Darwin should be taught in schools: the theory of evolution has had a major impact on mankind, and is of seminal importance to us if we are to comprehend both ourselves and the world around us. However, religion has also had a major impact on our world, and thus deserves to be studied. The best way to defeat any ridiculous idea is to give it a platform - censorship only makes it more attractive. I was taught both the evolution and creation theories, and I decided (along with the majority of people, I'm sure) that evolution was by far and away more likely. People should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Anthropologically speaking, creation myths, and the extent to which people involve themselves with them, are absolutely fascinating - indeed, I've studied and written about them before now. The power of belief (be it in something or nothing) is so fundamentally tied up in being human, that to deny and supress it does limit our understanding of ourselves, and that is why, as I said, it limits us intellectually.

[Annamariah]

Speaking as someone who is both a committed Christian and an ardent believer in evolution (the two are not mutually exclusive!), I think its all a bit daft really. I find over-zealous evangelicals and militant aetheists equally distasteful, though that is only my opinion.

I agree with your statement about over-zealous evangelicals and militant atheist being equally distasteful.

About the creation versus evolution argument, I really can't understand what's the big deal. I mean it is one of those things that cause a lot of arguments even among committed Christians, some of whom believe that the world was created in six days and others believing in evolution controlled by God. It's not like we could ever find out for sure, so why do people think they know the truth about the origin of everything? Some believers are ready to send each other to hell for having a wrong opinion on the matter, but why? As if how everything began was the most important thing about Christianity...

[Babbalanja]

The best way to defeat any ridiculous idea is to give it a platform - censorship only makes it more attractive. I was taught both the evolution and creation theories, and I decided (along with the majority of people, I'm sure) that evolution was by far and away more likely. People should be allowed to decide for themselves.

You're so magnanimous when it comes to pseudoscience of the creationist sort. But like I said before in those words I typed above, should we just allow schools to teach whatever they want about the racial inferiority of blacks? Should students be allowed to make up their own minds whether the Holocaust actually happened or is just Jewish propaganda? Do we really have to teach "both sides" of every issue, even if one is bolstered by copious evidence and the other is utter garbage?

Anthropologically speaking, creation myths, and the extent to which people involve themselves with them, are absolutely fascinating - indeed, I've studied and written about them before now. The power of belief (be it in something or nothing) is so fundamentally tied up in being human, that to deny and supress it does limit our understanding of ourselves, and that is why, as I said, it limits us intellectually.

I too find ancient mythology fascinating, because of what it says about the way our ancestors related to the universe. Though they're more informed by the scientific method, the Big Bang and evolution by natural selection are 'myth' in the sense that they show the way we relate to knowledge, our conception of our place in the universe, and our sense of shared history.

But I think it's fine to suppress the credulity and obscurantism that feed fundamentalism, because these are dangerous mindsets whether they're applied to religious or secular subjects. Society has a responsibility to teach people critical thinking skills and a skeptical approach to claims.

Regards,

Istvan