Creationism Bill - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 1, 2006

Creationism Bill

Date: Jan 1, 2006

Given that Edwards v. Aguillard [La.] and McLean v. Arkansas mean that the prevailing law of the land is that creationism, or "creation science" violates the establishment clause, I don't see this as going very far. The federal judge in the Dover case pretty much blew a new **** in the Intellgent design movement, too, so that endrun around the law is pretty much dead.

However, as a loyal Democrat, I want to encourage Rep. Lott and all his Republican colleagues to push as hard as they can on creationism and intelligent design. I only wish the national Republican party would follow the lead of our president and call for teaching of intelligent design in science class.

All my Republican relatives from the Mid-West and Northeast are aghast at all this infusion of religion into science. They like GOP tax policy, but are scared ****less that the religious right (which they incorrectly see as strictly southern) are going to use religion to stop the progress of medical science.

I want Ohio and Florida to return to the Democratic fold. So all you Southern Republicans, get busy calling for the book of Genesis as a science text.

Date: Jan 1, 2006

Somebody needs to send Mr. Lott a copy of the judge's decision in the Pennsylvania case. No matter what your personal opinion on the issue is, it is silly for the state to waste money going down this road.

Date: Jan 1, 2006

qwerty wrote:

All my Republican relatives from the Mid-West and Northeast are aghast at all this infusion of religion into science. They like GOP tax policy, but are scared ****less that the religious right (which they incorrectly see as strictly southern) are going to use religion to stop the progress of medical science.

This brain drain in biomedical research is a pretty serious issue that began when Bush pulled the rug out on stem cell research early in his first term.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

C.L.--Evolution doesn't mean 'progress'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060102/OPINION/601020316/1009

Date: Jan 2, 2006

My "mentor" C.S. Lewis accepted the notion of physical evolution. He felt there was danger, however, from the notion of social evolution, which many otherwise intelligent people embrace. That's the idea that humans are getting better, morally and mentally, by their own unaided efforts. (cf Gene Roddenberry's world.)
Christians can disagree on the subject of physical evolution to various degrees, but should be mindful of this other, more subtle and more dangerous doctrine.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

My "mentor" C.S. Lewis accepted the notion of physical evolution. He felt there was danger, however, from the notion of social evolution, which many otherwise intelligent people embrace. That's the idea that humans are getting better, morally and mentally, by their own unaided efforts. (cf Gene Roddenberry's world.) Christians can disagree on the subject of physical evolution to various degrees, but should be mindful of this other, more subtle and more dangerous doctrine.

LVN:

I am not so sure that humans have advanced very far morally or socially, and I am unfamiliar with the concept of social evolution (except the tongue in cheek Darwin awards). A recent National Geographic has an interesting article of the age of genocide. That would be the last hundred years up until the present. It's not a lot different than the great wars of the 1700 and 1800's, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages, and so forth. Except that the numbers have gotten worse, our domiciles more lavish, and the perpretrators dress nicer.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN, you raise a good point. My "mentor", Stephen Jay Gould, was quick to point out i that random variation was just that, random.

The application of Darwinian natural selection to society was first done in the late 19th century, as far as I'm aware, by the British political economist, Herbert Spencer. He also coined the term "survival of the fittest"--a phrase not used by Darwin. He and his American accolytes used social Darwinism as an excuse to do nothing to address the very obvious social ills of the late 19th century, a period of unprecedented economic change and social disruption.

William Jennings Bryan, the antagonist in the Scopes Monkey Trial, opposed "evolution" because he associated it with the defense of a reactionary, immoral social philosophy--social darwinism.

Bryan was a populist critical of big business and unafraid to use government to alleviate individual suffereing or restrain the excess of a market-oriented society dominated by big business. Social darwinism provided an ideology that blamed the victims and was un-Christian in its harsh treatment of the poor. (Spencer wrote often of letting the poor die as a means of improving the gene pool. Back then they called it "race progress").

These days, a few creationists pick up on these older themes, but insomuch that vestiges of social darwinism are lodged in the creationist's political ally, the Republican party, they don't gain much of an audience.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

My "mentor" C.S. Lewis accepted the notion of physical evolution. He felt there was danger, however, from the notion of social evolution, which many otherwise intelligent people embrace. That's the idea that humans are getting better, morally and mentally, by their own unaided efforts. (cf Gene Roddenberry's world.) Christians can disagree on the subject of physical evolution to various degrees, but should be mindful of this other, more subtle and more dangerous doctrine.

I agree with you LVN. I don't think "Social Evolution" is well defined except for the trivial fact that societies change. Because of this I don't consider it science, but I'm willing to be educated on this.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

My "mentor" C.S. Lewis accepted the notion of physical evolution. He felt there was danger, however, from the notion of social evolution, which many otherwise intelligent people embrace. That's the idea that humans are getting better, morally and mentally, by their own unaided efforts. (cf Gene Roddenberry's world.) Christians can disagree on the subject of physical evolution to various degrees, but should be mindful of this other, more subtle and more dangerous doctrine.

LVN, the Christian perspective is that man is sinful - not that he is getting better.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

I'm not sure "social" was the right word, actually. Maybe "moral" -- a lot of people really do think we have become "better" but as you say, that's obviously not true.
But the idea clearly stated in the Star Trek universe (we have evolved past prejudice, poverty, injustice, etc.) is a dangerous one, especially for people of faith. Both in Christianity and in Judaism we are created beings having freedom and responsibility but not ultimate control, and therefore not amenable to improvement without help. It's thinking that we are in charge that gets us into trouble.

I wish I could put my hands on the Lewis essay I'm thinking of. Where is Professor Lares when she's needed?

Here's one comment of his I found interesting in this context:

"If things can improve, this means that there must be some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process to which that process can approximate. There is no sense in talking of 'becoming better' if better means simply 'what we are becoming' - it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as 'the place you have reached'."

-- "Evil and God"

Date: Jan 2, 2006

The basics wrote:

LVN wrote:

LVN, the Christian perspective is that man is sinful - not that he is getting better.

Of course. Possibly you misread my first post?

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN, 2 wrote:

The basics wrote: LVN wrote: LVN, the Christian perspective is that man is sinful - not that he is getting better. Of course. Possibly you misread my first post?

You're right. I did misread it. I totally missed your point.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

...But the idea clearly stated in the Star Trek universe (we have evolved past prejudice, poverty, injustice, etc.) is a dangerous one, especially for people of faith. Both in Christianity and in Judaism we are created beings having freedom and responsibility but not ultimate control, and therefore not amenable to improvement without help. It's thinking that we are in charge that gets us into trouble. ... "If things can improve, this means that there must be some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process to which that process can approximate. There is no sense in talking of 'becoming better' if better means simply 'what we are becoming' - it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as 'the place you have reached'." -- "Evil and God"

I have to disagree with you here LVN. "People of Faith" need this only to justify their beliefs. Speaking objectively, it obviously isn't needed.

Your quote is not true either, in my opinion. Civilizations have and do progress without the need for the supernatural. Things can improve without "having absolute standards" in the sense the quote implies. Our species will improve when the dangers to its existence cease to exists. You know: hunger, illness, war, etc. Proper education can reduce greed etc.

I guess I think you have cause and effect reversed. If you need religion, you need the statement above to be true.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

Both in Christianity and in Judaism we are created beings having freedom and responsibility but not ultimate control, and therefore not amenable to improvement without help.

LVN-

I am getting a bit off thread here, but many of my Christian friends use the phrase Judeo-Christian (or link Christianity and Judaism) with the assumption that Jews generally have a very similar world view as Christians about God. This could be a long discussion, but the idea that one absolutely can not improve one's moral behavior without God's help and power is a bit distant from how many Jews I know think (and I suffered through many years in Hebrew School and attended an Orthodox Synagogue as a child). Also, the notion of being saved, the idea that rewards for good works exist primarily in one's afterlife, and the importance of conversion of non-believers (missions) doesn't resonate much with many of us (or leaves us scratching our heads). In many ways, Christianity has more in common with Islam than it does Judaism. This is not too surprising, as Islam and Christianity are contemporaneous offshoots of Judaism.

Shalom

Mitch

Date: Jan 2, 2006

Mitch, please don't read more into my comment than I meant -- I am only speaking of the idea of humanity as the creation of God, not getting into specifics as to how that is understood.

Btw, you do know that I'm an honorary Jewish grandmother, don't you?

As for the previous poster, you know the quotation is from C.S. Lewis, not from me. He isn't really saying anything about religion, there, and I have taken it somewhat out of context. Lewis was trained in philosophy and insisted on more precision than some of us are used to. He is only saying that it's impossible to measure anything without a standard of measurement. When you talk about "better" you first must define "good."

Date: Jan 2, 2006

And Mitch, I am jumping back in to forestall a debate that could erupt here (well, maybe not here, but you never know.) Your definition of "saved" is not mine, but that whole concept is at the root of many deep divisions within Christianity itself, and you could start a donnybrook any time you want to by asking a random assortment of Christians what it means.

The phrase I've been trying to think of, instead of "social evolution" or "moral evolution" is the "idea of human perfectibility" -- would any people of the book accept such a notion?

Date: Jan 2, 2006

Atheist wrote:

education can reduce greed etc.

Atheist, I'd say quite the opposite is often true. Many young people enter graduate or professional school with the intent of helping the disadvantaged when they graduate in their respective discipline. How often that intent changes when they finally receive their degree and begin to realize that there's lots of $$$$$ to be made. Greed is not restricted to the uneducated. Neither is arrogance.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

Mitch wrote:

Also, the notion of being saved, the idea that rewards for good works exist primarily in one's afterlife ........doesn't resonate much with many of us (or leaves us scratching our heads).

A thoughtful post, Mitch, but what you say is a commonly held misconception. Good works has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

As I was saying . . .

Date: Jan 2, 2006

LVN wrote:

... As for the previous poster, you know the quotation is from C.S. Lewis, not from me. He isn't really saying anything about religion, there, and I have taken it somewhat out of context. Lewis was trained in philosophy and insisted on more precision than some of us are used to. He is only saying that it's impossible to measure anything without a standard of measurement. When you talk about "better" you first must define "good."

I understood it was from Lewis, LVN. I took it to be a religious statement rather than philosophical-- I now understand. Speaking philosophically, "good" and "evil" could be relative in terms for individuals but absolute in terms of survival of our species. There is still no need for the supernatural for this determination in my opinion.

Getting back to your point, I'm of the opinion that "progress" of our species toward the "good" is being accomplished through science. This gradually "evolution" is being opposed by some "people of faith" for the reasons I gave before, i.e. it removes the need for their beliefs.

Date: Jan 2, 2006

Out of Season wrote:

Atheist wrote: education can reduce greed etc.

Atheist, I'd say quite the opposite is often true. Many young people enter graduate or professional school with the intent of helping the disadvantaged when they graduate in their respective discipline. How often that intent changes when they finally receive their degree and begin to realize that there's lots of $$$$$ to be made. Greed is not restricted to the uneducated. Neither is arrogance.

You are correct, Out of Season. I didn't mean to imply that educated people weren't as greedy and the uneducated. I meant education could expose people to philosophies that discuss the virtues of a less material life. I was thinking of "The life of the mind as oppose to video games".

Date: Jan 2, 2006

Prediction: Mike Lott will introduce the bill & it will pass. The Great Sovereign State of Mississippi will then spend gazoodles of dollars defending it (in vain) in federal court. IIRC, our esteemed legislature passed a creationism bill in the 1980s while the Arkansas case was in court. Again, IIRC, the governor simply didn't sign it & the legislators, having done their requisite bit of grandstanding, went on about their business. If you think about it, this sort of situation is a good argument against gubernatorial succession...

Date: Jan 2, 2006

I disagree, I don't think it will pass. For one thing, the Methodist church and the Episcopal church have a good amount of political clout here, and neither support the ID movement.

By the way, can somebody explain how a region so thick with Scotsmen ended up so heavily Methodist, and not Presbyterian?

Date: Jan 3, 2006

LVN wrote:

the Methodist church and the Episcopal church have a good amount of political clout here, and neither support the ID movement.

I have been wondering about that. Do you know of any written reference that documents their non- support?

Date: Jan 3, 2006

No, I don't. But I know them. In fact, I am Episcopalian, but attended a Methodist church in a nearby town for some years until I moved to Hburg last year, and am descended from Methodist preachers on both sides of the family. (Used to enjoy teasing my grandmother, the grandchild of a circuit rider, that John Wesley died a priest of the Church of England and was buried in his vestments. I think she was very annoyed with him about it.)

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Atheist wrote:

I'm of the opinion that "progress" of our species toward the "good" is being accomplished through science.

Hmmm, Aethist, let's examine your statement that "progress" toward the "good" is being accomplished through "science." A little progress maybe, and perhaps a little good occasionally. Let me point out, however, that the Nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction were not developed by poets, actors, or musicians. Television, well known by parents and teachers as a purveyor of violence and a detractor of youth, was not invented by historians or English scholars. The chemical ingredients, crawling up our industrial smokestacks while belching their toxic fumes into the air, were not developed by political scientists, anthropologists, or sociologists. Handguns, such as those found on the streets and in the dark alleys of our nation's large cities, were not the brainchild of economists or accountants. I give science it's due credit, but there's no "progress" or "good" in any of the science-generated endeavors cited above. I recall a movie entitled "Soylant Green" that depicted some dasterdly handiwork of scientists. And I remember Frankenstein. He wasn't invented by a philosopher or a theologian. I recall an old radio/television advertisement that went, "Better living . . . . through Chemistry." I never took that slogan too literally even way back when. I suggest that you not take it too literally today. Quality of life encompasses much more than mere scientific "accomplishments." So wake up and smell the roses. Read a poem. Listen to a symphony. Do anything. Just get your head out of that science book for a day or two.

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Cultural Attache wrote:

Atheist wrote: I'm of the opinion that "progress" of our species toward the "good" is being accomplished through science. Hmmm, Aethist, let's examine your statement that "progress" toward the "good" is being accomplished through "science." A little progress maybe, and perhaps a little good occasionally. Let me point out, however, that the Nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction were not developed by poets, actors, or musicians. Television, well known by parents and teachers as a purveyor of violence and a detractor of youth, was not invented by historians or English scholars. The chemical ingredients, crawling up our industrial smokestacks while belching their toxic fumes into the air, were not developed by political scientists, anthropologists, or sociologists. Handguns, such as those found on the streets and in the dark alleys of our nation's large cities, were not the brainchild of economists or accountants. I give science it's due credit, but there's no "progress" or "good" in any of the science-generated endeavors cited above. I recall a movie entitled "Soylant Green" that depicted some dasterdly handiwork of scientists. And I remember Frankenstein. He wasn't invented by a philosopher or a theologian. I recall an old radio/television advertisement that went, "Better living . . . . through Chemistry." I never took that slogan too literally even way back when. I suggest that you not take it too literally today. Quality of life encompasses much more than mere scientific "accomplishments." So wake up and smell the roses. Read a poem. Listen to a symphony. Do anything. Just get your head out of that science book for a day or two.

It is through the use of the things of science that we approach the good. I agree that anything can be used for evil. For example, poets write cigarette commercials. I was thinking of science overcoming disease, hunger, etc. Remember I define the "good" to be what leads to survival of our species.

Date: Jan 3, 2006

Atheist wrote:

I define the "good" to be what leads to survival of our species.

Ah Ha! Perhaps therein lies the difference. I define "good" to be what we do to responsibly enhance the quality of life for all species, including our fellow man.

Date: Jan 3, 2006

LVN wrote:

I disagree, I don't think it will pass. For one thing, the Methodist church and the Episcopal church have a good amount of political clout here, and neither support the ID movement.

When the 1980s bill passed, I asked my state senator, a trustee at the local Methodist church, why he voted for it & he said, "They wrapped it up in a flag with Mom & apple pie."

Also, a considerable number of small-town Methodist churches are doctrinally Baptist & the only evidence that they are Methodist is that a bishop appoints the preachers.

HR>By the way, can somebody explain how a region so thick with Scotsmen ended up so heavily Methodist, and not Presbyterian?

Why do you suppose they got run out of Scotland? Truth is, the region is heavily populated by "foot warshers," aka hard-shell Baptists. Methodists tend to be a small town phenomenon & that's just to give the drinkers an alternative to the dozen or so Baptist churches than any community with more than 200 residents seems to be able to support.