Third Party & Independents: Archives

January 30, 2004

You say you want de-evolution.

Georgia is proposing removing the word “evolution” from their science curriculum. That’s like removing the word “osmosis” or “polynomial” from the math classes.

Actually, the Eagle Forum has advocated in the past that we shouldn’t teach math because when kids learn that there are no absolutes then they start to question God and are doomed to a lifetime of drug abuse.

That is actually strong argument to favor Democrats. Other than Joe Lieberman, Dems are rarely fanatic religious activists trying to force everyone in the country to live by the teachings of their particular religion.

Posted by rev_matt_y at January 30, 2004 10:42 AM
Comments
Comment #6828

Ignorance in the modern world can be as much of a stumbling block leading to sin as knowledge can be. Keeping children ignorant will not keep them innocent, and definitely will not prevent them from questioning God, especially if their ignorance has deprived them of the ability to see the order hidden in the world around them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2004 09:02 PM
Comment #6830

sadly, certain people will play off “ignorance” as “faith” or “loyalty”

if you question, you are clearly a dissenter, clearly lacking morals, and clearly unpatriotic.

the chosen few have the faith not to question.

i kind of feel sorry for them. because by not asking questions…you allow others to think for you.

Posted by: rob at January 31, 2004 11:10 PM
Comment #6832

The many diverse interpretations of the King James Bible from humanly written book of stories some based in fact, some as metaphor, some as allegory, to literal acceptance of each word as derived from God and therefore true on its face, does little harm and much good within the realm of community churches. To have such various interpretations governing different public school curricula will inevitably lead to divisiveness in the adult population of the future, and to a dumbing down of students who will become America’s workers, scientists, managers, and political leaders of the future.

The 20th Century saw our populace living in two worlds, quite successfully: the secular and the spirtual. As the spiritual thinking shaped the goals and idealism of Native American tribes and American populations, the methodologies and measures of progress and success came from the secular educations young people received.

In the religious world, fate or divine intervention can explain what happens to whom and why. In the secular world, empirical science, universal laws and theories, and trial and error explain what happens to whom and why.

This dichotomy of the 20th century led the United States to become the preeminent nation in the world. Under the current administration that dichotomy is being destroyed, and so too is the hopeful, prosperous and successful future of the 21st century. There is a reason the medieval period dominated by the church and largely absent the engineering, sciences and arts of the Roman and Greek empires, were called the “Dark Ages”.

Where monotheistic religion rules societies, heresy, witchery, conformity and uninspired thinking and activities abound. And no good end is served, not even God’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2004 05:56 AM
Comment #6846

I realize that this has little to do with the meat of the post, but Joe Lieberman is hardly a religious fanatic trying to force his religion upon us. He lets his religion shape his politics, yes, but he is very accepting of other religions.

Posted by: Robert Grebel at February 1, 2004 05:05 PM
Comment #6856

How’s this for a deal? Georgians can change “evolution” to “biological changes over time” and “Jesus” to “1st century socialist thinker”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 2, 2004 12:35 AM
Comment #6864

Jesus Christ a socialist? How dare you?


/sarcasm

Posted by: Robert Grebel at February 2, 2004 12:56 PM
Comment #6948

The irony is the word evolution was a pet peeve of Darwin’s. He called his process Descent with Modification. He preferred not to use the word “evolution” because the word itself meant a kind of unfolding- a rather progressive idea of the process, with every generation improving on the next. Darwin’s system was much more tuned into refinement as it fit an environment, not improvement overall. Still, this smacks of foot-in-the-door political processes. First they outlaw the word, then they start defining what kind of process can be taught. It’s easy when you get Evolution out of it’s proper scientific context to switch around the different flavors of creationalism and Intelligent Design, without people being much the wiser.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2004 11:43 PM