Now, on the eve of the anniversary of the release of "Origin of Species" (145 years to the day on November 24th. I've got a bigger, less angry post planned for then) we're still fighting the bloody stupid ignorance that Darwin, Wallace, and Huxley faced all those years ago. Frankly, if this keeps up, it may mean the beginning of the end for legitimate science in the US.... If Bush continues to allow the fundamentalists to attack legitimate freedom of scientific expression, then the states may well be on a rocky path indeed. (for those who think: this is only a problem for biologists, remember, the fundies don't like a great deal of theories in the humanities and social sciences... )
Argh, I am incredibly angered by this. Evolutionary biologists (and scientists in general) have better things to do then waste their time fighting against blind stupidity.
7 comments:
Okay, I'm not sure how the whole "Doctrine of Infallibility" comes in; the Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution as a perfectly valid scientific theory; the Roman Church in general views Genesis as metaphorical. Where does this confusion come from? Might I point out that the United States as a nation are overwhelmingly *protestant* not Catholic, and in that large body of often thoughtful, open-minded and moderate people, there are a large contingent of *whack-jobs.* Don't paint all the many diverse forms of Christianity with the same brush; do you guys agree with everything that every scientist says? I doubt it.
The irony of this debate is that scientists are being just as knee-jerk as the Christian Right. As you yourself have stated, there are holes in the theory of evolution; theories by definition are unproven. In fact, it is a belief that you have based on what you consider to be strong evidence, the same way that my faith is composed of beliefs based on what I consider to be strong evidence. You are firmly convinced that you are *right.* I see no problem with that, but know also that the people you are arguing against are just as firmly convinced that they are right. If you start out calling them all idiots, and vice versa, there is NO chance of any sort of cohesion between the two groups. In the immortal words of St. Francis of Assissi: "Grant that I may not so much seek to be understood, as to understand."
And one note on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility: this is one of the LEAST understood doctrines in the Catholic Church. First of all, the only reason it passed at all is because half of the cardinals threw their ballots into the river because they thought it was so stupid. Second of all, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility does NOT mean that the pope is infallible at all times; it means that on specific occasions, when he so chooses to invoke papal infallibility, he can. Thirdly, this has only been done ONCE in the history of the Catholic Church, on the immaculate conception (December 8). This meas that it's one of those things you HAVE to believe to be Catholic, and before papal infallibility was invoked, it was also one of those things you HAD to believe in. Honestly, TJ if you're going to be derisive about my faith, at least know what you're talking about.
About the two times: I realized it almost immediately after I said it; sorry, not all of us are religious studies majors ;o0
And infallibility: maybe this is just my impression, not what actually, but I had thought that ex cathedra was the only doodad that was irreversible. And is there a college of bishops? Do you mean the college of Cardinals? This may be another one of those, "Caitlin isn't a RS major" things, but I think there are WAY too many bishops for them to have a college . . . or maybe that's just me.
Oh, and one small issue, Kaedra: there's always been science; just not post-enlightenment science; humans have always tried to explain their surroundings "scientifically." If you look at Early Modern European medicine, it is absolutely fascinating (though also fairly frightening).
And one final (hopefully conciliary) note: we are all looking for truth, and if we'd all just try to be a bit more moderate in our belief that we are right, we might actually get somewhere in finding that truth (be it capital 't' or not).
Okay, we are not "being just as knee-jerk as the Christian Right". This is not a creation/evolution dialog. This is fundamentalists trying to force an ideological view onto science. Science is not ruled by fiat. Pronouncing that creation must be taught is forcing an idiotic, entirely unfounded and scientifically unsupported idea to be taught AS EQUAL to a theory that 99.999% of all scientists consider to be accurate is ludacrist. Hell, I don't think general relativity has this much universal support in the scientific community, yet no one is insisting that we give 'equal time' to people who think that mass is created by koala bears to pass the time.
Evolutionary biology has been supported flawlessly by discoveries in cosmology, physics, chemistry, climatology, limenology, genetics, math, engineering, economics, ecology, and a slew of other fields. If evolution were proven wrong today (which could happen. I don't see it as likely, but hey, there's a chance) then creationism still would be contradicted by virtually every other field. The only thing that could replace Darwinian evolution now is a theory that explains all the data that evolution explains, and creationism couldn't achieve that in a million years.
There is no point trying to convince creationists. The majority or "look for cohesion" with them. The vocal ones are invariably the ones who cannot be convinced, the ones for which any piece of evidence is insufficient evidence. The non-vocal ones, well, if we can show them the evidence in peace, without idiotic theories being given "equal time", then they can be convinced. However, to be honest, I don't give a damn what someone else believes. Believe there is a giant teacup in orbit on the other side of the sun, for all I care. The reason I get upset about the huge numbers of people believing in creationism is that it indicates that we're going to be fighting an uphill battle just for the right to teach and study evolution for a long, long time yet.
ps: oh, and about TJ: he enjoys shit-disturbing almost as much as me. You have to know how to read between the lines with him. He knows as well as I the policies of the Catholic Church on evolution, he just likes bothering people. Also, I can sympathize with him attacking religion as the major cause of this. Where we come from, bible-belt fundamentalism is the norm. We both have had to put up with years of people telling us that we're going to burn in hell for believing in evolution (I was once thrown into a lake for it). I just wish the learned religious people would be more vocal in supporting evolution. For a fundamentalist, silence means assent, and the average evolutionary biologist ends up feeling like they're in a castle under siege, without a single ally on the horizon.
Well, I totally agree with the idea that there are a lot of knee jerk idiots, and many of them are tied to religion. But there also a lot of knee jerk idiots tied to science. In fact, I am related to some of them; Eric, you may have been thrown in a lake for believing in evolution rather than creationism, but I was virtually sent from the dinner table once at my uncle's for saying grace *silently and privately to myself.* I have grown up in a community that treats science the same way that Cut-knife treats religion--without question, without compassion for other viewpoints, and without understanding of those viewpoints.
Like religion, science is a *social construct.* Now, before anyone jumps angrily down my throat, I don't mean to say that the things that science studies are social constructs, anymore than I mean to say that the things that religions study are social constructs; they are real things that we as humans are trying to understand. But the discipline itself is no more "real" than music, or poetry, or novels, or, dare I say it, the Catholic Church. And just like religions and post-modern theorists, it attracts its own particular brand of psycho.
Caitlin, I entirely agree with the "science is a social construct" thing. Science is created by individuals living in society. It is a human construct to the core (I hate the term social construct. Societies don't construct things. People do.) I am well aware of the scientific psychos. As Kaedra said, there are scientific ideologs who try to force their beliefs on others. These people, I am also at war with. Frankly, I'll fight ideology where ever and when never I find them. (ps: Caitlin: I'm going to stop making post-modernist comments. I need to look at the theories behind it a lot more. I still don't think I can support it, but I need to know more about it. Frankly, I have to pick your brain on this at some point.) I hate Social Darwinists (as an example of scientists trying to force their views on society) far more than I ever could creationists. Creationists are just a parasite, trying to live off popular misconceptions and the gross lack of science education in our culture. Social Darwinists and their ilk have irrevocably scarred science, causing a hundred times as much damage as any religious nut could. You can not imagine how much I despise scientific dogmatism and fundamentalism.
And Kaedra: no, I don't think most religions are vocal enough in support of evolution. If they were, there would be as many preachers lined up to fight this recent problem as there are scientists. Back when we fought this same battle, in Arkansas in the 1980's, there were almost as many preachers lined up to defend the right to not teach creation as there were scientists. Why isn't this happening now? Just saying "we support evolution" isn't good enough. This is a battle far far more important that just one scientific issue. I just wish we could convince the thinking world of this.
Realistically, we're not dissagreeing here... neither TJ or I are saying that religion is the problem, and Caitlin and Kaedra don't look like they're saying that creation should be taught... we just seem to differ on emphasis.
ps: the "thrown in lake" thing was just to illustrate why I respond so rabidly to religious fundamentalism. It wasn't a slight of either of your posisitions, just a reason why I tend to react somewhat more harshly to religious fundamentalism than to other things I disagree with.
Post a Comment