Author
|
Topic: The Crusade Against Evolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 28 September 2004 10:51 PM
This issue crystalizes the fundamental issue: is there such a thing as objective science.Of course, the anti-Darwinists claim there isn't: quote: Intelligent design advocates say that teaching students to "critically analyze" evolution will help give them the skills to "see both sides" of all scientific issues. And if the Discovery Institute execs have their way, those skills will be used to reconsider the philosophy of modern science itself - which they blame for everything from divorce to abortion to the insanity defense. "Our culture has been deeply influenced by materialist thought," says Meyer. "We think it's deeply destructive, and we think it's false. And we mean to overturn it."
And if ever science is overturned, materialist science, the result will be that anyone will believe and ACT UPON whatever superficial nonsense the networks decide to make "true." Bush will be remembered as a moderate.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 29 September 2004 12:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by Gir Draxon: I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.
Uh, I think you kinda missed the boat on that one. It is no crime to criticize the Origin of Species or Darwin's model of evolution. But you had better have a good replacement model that explains the things we see today, otherwise it's so much bafflegab and you'll get laughed off the pages of the serious scientific journals. The Bible is a whole different book than the Origin of Species as well. To compare the two is not really possible. The Bible is a collection of various pieces of literature that together purport to be the immutable Holy Word of God. The Origin of Species is, essentially, an attempt to coherently describe what observations Darwin made and how to account for those observations. Anyone is free to attempt to explain those observations in a different fashion, but bringing in the Deus Ex Machina of God, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Baal, or whoever will mean that you will get slapped for trying to mix religious dogma and scientific reasoning. [ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 29 September 2004 12:02 AM
I wouldn't mind a splash of that gradualism myself, Briguy, if you'd be so kind. Good vintage, what? quote: I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?
What old days would those be, Gir? And who's saying it's a crime to dispute Darwin? Incidentally, I don't know if you equate "Darwin's theory" with the "theory of evolution," but if so, it's a category error. Evolution -- that is, descent with modifications -- is not a theory, but a fact, or a set of data to be explained by a theory. Darwin's theory, to oversimplify unforgiveably, is that evolution can be explained by natural selection. (And a theory, incidentally, is not at all the same as a hypothesis, or a guess, or a set of speculations). Darwin's theory, unlike "intelligent design," can in principle be proven wrong, and like Briguy suggests, has definitely been disputed. [ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791
|
posted 29 September 2004 01:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by Gir Draxon: I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.
Ah, but you see, many scientists have questioned the importance of natural selection. Somebody mentioned punctuaded equilibrium, for instance. But even with these new approaches to evolution, natural selection (Darwin's idea of how evolution works) is still very important, since it is the main mechanism through witch nature disposes of the useless individual mutations. Darwin, by the way, didn't invent "evolution". He found and extensively explained and documented the mechanisms through which natural selection operates. Evolution itself is as much of a fact as the sphericity of the Earth, whatever the religious nut cases say! [ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 29 September 2004 01:35 AM
Gir: These people are not attacking evolution with just any other alternate story in mind. Among macroevolutionary theorists, there are multiple schools of thought, only one of which (admittedly the dominant one) proposes strict gradualistic natural selection as the cause of species genesis.What these people are doing is attacking the very intellectual methodology under which these theories are developed. And they are doing so, not because they see an inherent flaw in the methodology, but because entirely they do not like implications of the result. It's like being angry at the universe because it didn't let you change the rules to get a particular lunch on a particular day. And in doing so, they undermine so many other sciences, human and natural. No longer is it necessary to inquire, for instance, as to the source of poverty, since we can simply give the answer that The Poor Have Always Been With Us and to ask that question is to "break down society." What things like macroevolutionary theory and a theory of poverty have in common is a methodology to find systematic relationships in information that is both chaotic, abundant, and inaccessible. To do this, scientists and others have developed methodologies to separate wishful thinking from known facts. What these people wish to do is to undermine this entire edifice. And they do so in such a deceptive way. What they wish to institute is an ideological tyranny where we can no longer separate the reality of the situation from their wishful thinking. And they do so by claiming that our attempts to separate these things go against "intellectual freedom" and "diversity", hijacking the very language that frees the scientist. They claim that scientists are intolerant because they use tests that separate the theoretical wheat from the chaff. Because they don't want it separated---that is the true intolerance, Gir.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 29 September 2004 04:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Briguy: That belief is untestable and therefore is faith, not science.
That is precisely the point I was making. Faith should not be imposed on science, and science cannot prove or disprove faith. So does maple whiskey taste better than regular whiskey? I usually drink cheap vodka and O.J. myself, but am willing to be educated. [ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 30 September 2004 02:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: ...I am not into the practice of religion as an outlet for an inexplicable manifestation of a maliciously deceptive urge.
I'd make that into a bumper sticker, except no one would have time to read it before the light changed. Rich L; you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence. What Darwin did was propose a mechanism, called natural selection, for how evolution would work. He was building on the efforts of earlier scientists such as Lyell [I think?] who deduced from geological process that the Earth was much older than had been thought. This longer time meant that it was possible that natural selection could take place over a long time so that species could change over time. Darwin was not the only one to think of it, Alfred Wallace came up with the idea independently. After Darwin many scientists confirmed that his proposed mechanism explained other things. They refined his ideas and added to them and eventually built up the biological sciences to their present state, including the whole understanding of and use of DNA, genetically modified crops, etc. Modern Biology and Medicine are both built upon evolution; it's not a theory anymore. You can see a similar case of how science works in Simon Winchester's book about Krakatoa; he has a chapter about how the idea of continental drift was seen as ridiculous until somebody thought up a mechanism for how it worked; then all sorts of scientists start finding all sorts of evidence which confirms that mechanism is the actual one.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 30 September 2004 04:47 PM
quote: You can see a similar case of how science works in Simon Winchester's book about Krakatoa; he has a chapter about how the idea of continental drift was seen as ridiculous until somebody thought up a mechanism for how it worked; then all sorts of scientists start finding all sorts of evidence which confirms that mechanism is the actual one.
Actually, I came up with the idea of continental drift -- me and lots of other bored schoolkids, probably. Of course, I was kind of late in the day (ca. 1973), and had neither evidence nor a mechanism. And I didn't think through the implications. But I distinctly remember sitting in a grade 4 class, not really paying attention, but looking at the old Mercator map of the world hanging up front, and thinking "Africa and South America look like they might fit together, sort of, if you moved them." It's not much, but that's how Wegener got started. Later he went and found fossil and geological evidence.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 30 September 2004 05:44 PM
quote: To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.
I am surprised that someone as intelligent as Gir should think something so simplistic. Those who think Origin of Species is a truer book than the Book of Genesis can point out a thousand ways in which the former explains things which the latter does not. The Bible has no explanation for fossils! Biblical Adam was born homo sapiens sapiens, so of course could not be descended from a long chain of forms, protohumans all. And the Bible does not explain why human embryos have gill slits, just as fish do, and just like reptiles and amphibians do. Evolution says: "We share common ancestors." The Bible: "Duh." Of course, if someone insisted that The Origin of Species was right in every particular, and that evidence to the contrary could be ignored, then they'd be "fundies". As it is, they are simply people who recognize that Darwin, like Einstein, has provided an important explanation for how things really work.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 30 September 2004 05:55 PM
quote: As it is, they are simply people who recognize that Darwin, like Einstein, has provided an important explanation for how things really work.
Northrop Frye, like many of his illustrious predecessors in the discipline of poetics (see Aristotle, etc), has also provided an important explanation of how things really work, especially an important explanation of how books and writing work, that would, if people ever bothered to read him, stop many people here from believing that all these books are somehow in competition ... But, of course, no one reads him.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 30 September 2004 06:17 PM
Well, one book says that humans are descended from apes, over a multi-million year history.Another one says that two specific humans, Adam and Eve, were created by the breath of God and had no animal predecessors. They are in conflict, aren't they? And one of them is true, and based upon the investigatory efforts of thousands of human beings. The other one is a nice old story. I don't buy the idea that there is no difference between literature and science. If E doesn't equal MC squared, then there is little to fear from the "story" of nuclear weapons.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 October 2004 12:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by black_dog:
Yeah, the Bible does. It says Adam was formed from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs. Modern evolutionary theory cannot co-exist with ancient creation myths. They are contradictory and only the former has any evidence to support it.
No, black_dog. The Bible does not say, "Humans had no animal ancestors."
I find this such a weird discussion, but then I never read anything much above the level of a shopping list literally. I am surprised that so many here do.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 01 October 2004 12:43 PM
Just for clarity so there's no arguing from vague-or-not-memories, the King James Version: quote: Gen2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
I fall into the 'coexist, but don't use the Bible as a science text any more than you'd use Darwin as a morality text' camp. Edit: skdadl, one reason literal readings get brought up is that the bulk of 'creation science' types tend to adhere to a Biblical literalist point of view. Arguments on the level of 'that can't be true, it's not specifically stated in Genesis', and that sort of thing. Here's a link to my favourite resource for debunking creationist claims, by which I mean the 'throw all that science rubbish out' creationist claims. [ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915
|
posted 01 October 2004 02:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Contarian: Rich L; you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence.
Huh? I appreciate the lecture, but it's in response to what? I think you are misreading what I was trying to say. quote: Originally posted by pebbles: Do you believe that theories of electromagnetism, gravity, a heliocentric solar system, or hydrodynamics should also not be represented as "truth"?Do you know what "theory" means?
Science is a method; science does not equal "truth." The moment you use the word "truth," you are talking about faith. I've heard it both in philosophy courses as well as in physics courses. You might want to check it out for yourself. And, frankly, I could do without the paternalistic tone. *edited to fix my mis-attributing of one of the above quotes*
[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Rich L ]
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915
|
posted 01 October 2004 03:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by Contrarian: Rich L, your first quote "you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence." was written by me as an introduction to my explanation of how science is different from faith. Your previous post indicated that you did not understand how science works and that you considered evolution to be merely another matter of faith.
Maybe it's the exact language I used or that fact that I didn't thoroughly explain the point I was making that seems to be setting some folks off. In retrospect, my one sentence doesn't adequately expalin what I was trying to say, so I will try to do a little better here. I'm hoping this will mean others will feel free to debate me rather than sermonize me. However, I'll reiterate that science is not the same thing as "truth." I'm not saying that scientific conclusions should be treated as a matter of faith. Science is a highly systematized method, based on observations and experiments, through which we seek to discover truths, yes. But scientific conclusions don't equal the truth because, for one, the scientific method is never finished - through further science, we often see yesterday's scientific conclusions superceded or re-examined as part of today's conclusions. As well, anything not meeting the criteria for the scientific method (e.g., that it's observable, repeatable, etc.) isn't valid as a scientific conclusion. Maybe the hulabaloo is over my use of the term "truth," but I hope this makes my perspective (which I adopted while studying theoretical physics) clearer. Now why was I bringing this up in this discussion on evolution? Well, the debate over whether evolution should be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools often turns into people (usually creationists) "picking over" the theory of evolution - referring to tiny gaps in the scientific evidence, inconsistencies in findings, or observations that have been difficult to explain within the framework. These don't somehow "disprove" evolution as creationists would like to claim because evolution isn't just one of many alternate truths that can be posited one for the other. In other words, it's not the "truth" of evolution vs. the "truth" of creation vs. whatever other alternate "truth" someone wants to interject; rather, evolution is a product of science and not a truth that we can choose to believe or not believe. Evolution is a framework within the scientific method and hence is qualitatively different than a truth (which I think was the point you were trying to make, Contrarian) - research and scientific debates regarding evolution are ongoing and, as a result, evolution isn't just some finished or wholly complete "truth" that can be rejected based on technicalities.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 01 October 2004 08:19 PM
quote: They co-exist as explanations for the history of the world; the one scientific, the other allegorical.
So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib? An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men. I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 October 2004 08:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib? An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men. I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.
Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods? And most still do? Do we happen to know what Darwin thought of women's enfranchisement?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796
|
posted 01 October 2004 09:21 PM
quote: Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?
The clocwork universe works fine, so long as the universe is a clock. Does time run out? Keep winding the clock. [ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Frac Tal ]
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 01 October 2004 09:48 PM
To posit a clock suggests (even demands) a clockmaker. Something the creationists of course latch onto.The error is that you're confusing science with engineering. Clocks don't evolve. (I'd like to say I know clockwork, and he never evolved, but that would be an in-joke only for older babblers, so I won't) Anyway, engineering isn't science. It is a practical expression of the fruits of science, and is subservient to it. I fear that the distinction between the two is becoming lost even in the halls of academe. BTW, NOVA has been running a great series on PBS on the origens of the universe leading up to the beginnings of life on Earth.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796
|
posted 01 October 2004 10:04 PM
Begs the question, what is science? Is Nova the last word?Is it either/ or? Creationism or Evolution? Seems kinda limiting to me. I know,I know, there was a huge cloud which under enormous forces and pressures contracted into a point where there was a gigantic explosion, and this is the result, etc, etc... Through observation, we discover our own footprints. [ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Frac Tal ]
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 01 October 2004 10:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?And most still do? Do we happen to know what Darwin thought of women's enfranchisement?
I've no idea how this relates, at all, to a discussion of the differences between science and religion. And Darwin's opinions of womens' enfranchisement mean virtually nothing in light of the fact that the correctness or not of his description of a process by which species originate is independent of any of his subjective viewpoints on human enfranchisement. There have very likely been some fantastic scientists who were utter troglodytes in terms of their views on aspects of humanity. It doesn't change the fact that if their description of the behavior of the universe correctly fits the facts, we retain it. Just as science is essentially independent of national origin, it is also essentially independent of the fallibilities of the humans who add to it, since what matters in the end is whether a description is valid or not. An example of the swiftness with which science can dispose of erroneous ideas was the speed at which the theory of plate tectonics was found to be an accurate explanation for the shapes of continents as they exist today. As I recall from 'lance, it was apparently as late as the 1950s that the plate tectonic theory was not accepted as valid, and it was not until the early 1960s that observations were made that verified the validity of the hypothesis. Wegener could have been the shiniest happiest person ever, full of great ideas about the liberation of women, animals and amoebae, or the basest troglodyte and racist, but that doesn't change the fact that his hypothesis happens to be the best one we have to explain the continental drift and the shapes of such continents.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 October 2004 10:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib? An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men. I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.
Gee, jeff house, excuse me, but ... If we are going to hold original texts to the same literalist standard that you prefer, then we gotta hold them all to the same standard. Fair enough? Genesis offended you because it was, you said, sexist. You couldn't see an endorsement of women's equality in Genesis. So I am still wondering whether you can see any such endorsement in Darwin. ???
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 02 October 2004 03:20 AM
I can see skdadl's point (or at least I see some version of skdadl's -- and Northrop Frye's -- point). There are different kinds of "truth". Consider the sun. How is it viewed by astronomers? By poets? By plants? By farmers? By the Aztecs of 700 years ago? The way that each of these thinks of the sun is "true", each in its own sense. I would never say that all of these "truths" are equal, but rather that they cannot be directly compared. What is "true" in science is a very different thing than what is "true" in culture. A "myth" can have no scientific truth, but can hold a great cultural truth. Darwin's ideas describe (among other things) our biological origins. The bible (love it or hate it) is a huge part of our cultural origins. I am inclined to science, without having a strong scientifc education, but I try to understand other perspectives. I also feel (without having thought it through much yet) that present-day creationists are more about politics than about culture. I am not religious, but I don't see the diverse writings of the bible as being in conflict with science. I do see the creationists as being in conflict with science, and in that conflict I know which side I'm on. [ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 October 2004 03:26 AM
quote: What is "true" in science is a very different thing than what is "true" in culture. A "myth" can have no scientific truth, but can hold a great cultural truth.
But some myths are simply false. They do not necessarily hold any "cultural truth." Skdadl's point about what Darwin thought about women's equality is one I cannot answer. I haven't read Darwin, ever, trying to ascertain how he felt about women's suffrage. His theory isn't about that. But the Genesis story IS precisely about women's inferiority.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 02 October 2004 06:47 AM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl: Genesis offended you because it was, you said, sexist. You couldn't see an endorsement of women's equality in Genesis.So I am still wondering whether you can see any such endorsement in Darwin. ???
I don't know, skdadl - I mean, Genesis didn't just not have an endorsement of women's equality - it had an endorsement of women's utter inferiority. Gee, do you think the people who came up with that story had any vested interest in human society believing that women were evil and inferior? I'm guessing that Darwin probably didn't have an endorsement of women's utter inferiority, although it's true that there have been lots of feminist critiques of scientific theories that didn't seem sexist but actually could be considered so if you dug deep enough. In any case, even when a scientific theory has been found to have been sexist in outlook (I'm trying to think of the example we went over in women's studies - it was quite interesting), the fact is, the scientific theory is always open to review and change through better scientific theories that replace it. But some fairy tale about how God came along and made a man out of dust and a woman out of dustboy's rib - well, that's really not a theory that can be challenged in any way because there's no data to analyze and no evidence to refute, unless you were also to make up some fairy tale out of broad cloth to counter it. "No no! I have a better one! What REALLY happened is that a big tornado came along, and through some crazy stroke of chance, built the first human being out of a bunch of amoebas that got all mixed up together!" [ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 02 October 2004 11:23 AM
The difference between science and religion is that science has a self correcting mechanism, while religion does not. Once something is "true" in religion, it is "true" for all time. In science, when more or better information comes along, our "truths" change accordingly.Truth be told, most people, scientists included, sling the word truth around haphazardly. Except in the field of mathematics, the vast majority of scientific "truths" are provisional. There's nothing wrong with that. We might see a bus coming down the road when we want to cross. It could be an hallucination. Or it might be real. Scientifically, however, it serves to accept that the bus is a provisional truth. This is the real strength of science. It works better, and much more often, than other systems of thinking. Philosophers might dissagree, but I've watched them cross the road before, and I know what they know in their heart of hearts.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 October 2004 02:12 PM
quote: we need to think what worldly motives creationists may have
It is about who runs the household. And the country. If Biblical "allegorical truths" are given the same status as scientific investigation, then it is utterly appropriate to argue that women should do the housework, defer to a man, and become an overall doormat. And then she shouldn't have a say in the organization of the political world, either, as she is suited to domestic concerns. Treating science and allegory as equal in their claims to truth opens a Pandora's box. The creationists then can just roll in, along with their fundamentalist brethren.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 02 October 2004 02:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
I haven't read Darwin, ever, trying to ascertain how he felt about women's suffrage.
How appallingly incurious of you. Try a biography. He was a Victorian male. Guess what you are going to find?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 02 October 2004 02:41 PM
Yeah! Marx! Horrifying Victorian male! The stories we could tell! Look, you guys: this is your territory. For me to make my points fairly, I would have to start the seminar on Aristotle's turf, or Vico's turf, or Frye's turf. Given that this is a thread for literalists, all I can do here is troll. But y'all do puzzle me, for intelligent people. I mean, there are data; there is information; there are facts, yes. On their own, though, data mean little -- they always have to be interpreted. So some people here talk instead about something they call Truth. Ha! Truth, I think, is somewhere beyond data. If Darwin were The Truth, no one would have bothered to write after him. Why? I accept evolutionary theories of life on earth totally and easily, although I'm a touch amused that people think of Darwin as some exclusive inventor here. He was very good, but he wasn't the first; he wasn't the last; and who cares in those terms? That is not how thought, or the history of thought, works.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 02 October 2004 05:00 PM
quote: the Genesis story IS precisely about women's inferiority.
I hadn't noticed this categorical claim before, but, y'see, this is what I mean. Like, I see someone write a sentence like that, and I think, gosh, jeff, that's cute. And you are entirely entitled to that opinion! And you are probably not alone in that opinion! But jeff: it IS an opinion! There are other ways to read Genesis. You can stomp your little tootsies and insist on the correctness of your reading, your interpretation, all you like, but there are other ways.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 October 2004 05:42 PM
I expressed myself inexactly. I was trying to point out that the Genesis story is ABOUT the direct relationship of men to God, and the indirect relationship of women to God, mediated by men.The Origin of Species is not ABOUT that; Darwin's possibly-sexist views do not appear in Origin, and his theory is in no way undermined because he may have preferred women in a secondary role (though I am still awaiting evidence on that point.) Of course, someone can always assert that humans interpret stories; and who is to say that the Genesis story is not about the relationship of moray eels and sea urchins to God? That's true. But since narly the whole of humanity will interpret this part of Genesis is a sexist way, straining for other interpretations simply guarantees political defeat at the hands of fundamentalists. In fact, Genesis was written before humans knew very much about their origins, that's why it is wrong. I prefer to admit that, rather than claim that it is an allegory suggesting deeper truths.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|