I’ve blogged on this prior, but I think a reminder is needed and this is surely a valid one. Before I said we shouldn’t allow “Academic Freedom” in form of criticizing evolutionary theory in classes. I also said why, but apparently it’s not clear enough that people would understand. Or maybe they do — and don’t care.
In science, evolution is a fact. There’s also a theory of evolution. The theory explains how the fact works. The theory of evolution will never be perfect, because we’ll always be modifying it as new evidence comes out. This is, however, most certainly NOT a weakness. Theories are meant to change. Because we’ll never have all the information on how they work and et cetera.
Germ theory of disease, for example, is imperfect, but no one is going to flat-out deny the existence of germs, are they? Well, yes and no. Yes in strange conspiracy circles, no in any rational person who isn’t batshit insane.
The reason why we don’t want to allow people to criticize evolution is simple: if people criticize elements of it that haven’t yet been analyzed, there will be so much to criticize that people will overlook the obvious benefits reaped from evolutionary theory (medicine, for one) and ask why we’re even teaching it if it has so many holes. That’s what the intelligent idiot community wants, they want to teach what we’ve not yet figured out about evolution and exploit that to question if it even happens, regardless of what is being criticized.
Florida is treading a dangerous path, one that can only end badly if the IDiot community is allowed to continue their cynical (and fanatical) bullshit. Someone has to stop them, and if WE, the ones who care, don’t speak out, who does?
I have to laugh at your reasoning. You write a short diatribe about how no one should be allowed to criticize evolution and then denounce creationists as fanatical. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.
IMHO any thought process that won’t allow itself to be held up to scrutiny probably doesn’t have much thought in it.
Shalom
You are black.
Ironic, since no religion allows itself to indulge in the thought process or considers any evidence other than its own teachings.
However, saying it like that is lame.
Academic Freedom is a bill aimed only at evolutionary theory. I would be perfectly fine with mandating teaching of the supposed holes in every scientific theory, but to single out one over another makes a profound statement: only this one could be wrong!
Besides, academic scrutiny is nothing to scientific scrutiny, which proves evolution in itself. If you don’t profess to ‘believe’ in evolution, don’t get a flu shot this year.
Also: good job on completely missing the point.
The point of this journal is to say that the entire reason for wanting so-called academic freedom is to cast doubt on a well-documented and extremely supported science to let in creationism masquerading as science.
If you can’t see how that’s wrong…
Let me ask you a few questions – purely on a scientific level:
1. Where did origin begin?
2. What material had to come into existence for origin to begin?
3. And, as a glorified “super-evolved monkey”, why do you care? (and for that matter, where did conscience come from – seeing it is an intangible itself?)
4. Was there a witness to origin and if so, does He have a name?
Sir Isaac Newton knew these answers and wrote more on these subjects and all his lifetime scientific letters combined! Just a thought….
1. How life began isn’t my area. You’re looking for abiogenesis or something to that effect.
2. I’m not sure. I’d assume amino acids, carbon, a few other choice things, and the right timing.
3. Why do I care about what, exactly? I care about our education because I’m not a monkey. However, if we are what we came from, I’m a one-celled organism, and still not a monkey! Monkeys are modern too y’kno. (and for that matter, what defines conscience? It’s logical to assume animals have it as well, they’ve got brains, which is the only requirement!)
4. I’d assume the first creature to live would be a witness to origin. Or at least close. If not, could’ve been some alien watching from afar that lost interest after a few hundred million years… My doubt for this is actually up there with the whole god thing. But again, the origin of life is not my topic.
Because…
The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
I assume you mean that Sir Isaac Newton wrote about god or some nonsense? I’ve not went too deep into his writings, as his main subjects also aren’t my thing.
Even so, I won’t pretend to know how life arose. However, it’s fairly safe to say that it wasn’t a creator, designer, god, et. al.
Personal beliefs are irrelevant. One of my most respected biologists and my personal role model, Kenneth Miller, is a devout Roman Catholic and argues against Intelligent Design as science. There are also many other religious folks within the scientific community that support evolution.
Then there are the pretentious liars like Michael Behe and William Dembski…
Also, I think it fair to say that even though I don’t believe in god and hold that guy up there with the toothfairy and bigfoot, it could be true.
We’re all somewhat agnostic. If it were true, it still wouldn’t be science, though.
Though science is made up of truths, something being a truth or truths doesn’t qualify it to be science. Just for your information!