Lindsay pointed out that a recent edition of WORLD Magazine featured an article by founder Joel Belz that made a couple of the same points I did in my Fun With Evolution post. Despite the verbal density of my piece (of which I repent), I’m apparently not too far off track.
I’m just impressed that Mr. Belz (whom I’ve actually met) was able to unearth my post and incorporate it so seamlessly into his own musings—bending the space-time continuum, no less, in order to retroactively adjust his own editorial (dated August 20).
For a thoughtful read on the current debate, check out Mr. Belz’s Unhappy Warriors, and be alert for the overlapping thoughts, which may (sigh) cast additional light on my less lucid post.
Filed in: Controversy Science
5 comments:
I liked reading your post, even though I disagree with you on the topic, because you write so beautifully.
Paula, you are very kind. I continue to appreciate your ability to disagree sympathetically.
Well, the kill 'em with kindness maxim has gone into effect. You're being so kind it's killing me.
I've curious what our differences are. Very curious, in fact. So curious I wouldn't be hurt if you elaborated. Not at all.
So go on, speak up. (I won't downgrade your kindness scores.)
Disagree more audibly, I beg you.
LOL. The guy's article is all about how "grumpy" we are that creationists are trying to push their religious beliefs in science classes. Well, yes we are. We're actually fucking furious. Grumpy doesn't begin to cover it. We know that if we let you do it, next you'll attack the physical principles of science, and before long, we'll be back in the Middle Ages. You think that isn't the plan of the ID movement? Google "Discovery Institute Wedge document".
President Bush supports the IDers because he is fiercely anti-intellectual. No wonder. Science proves most of what he has to say on global warming, economics and WMD in Iraq to be a pack of lies, and it easily demonstrates that his policies are largely to the detriment of the citizens of the US and the world. He is not a particularly well educated man, and some of his closest advisors are churchmen with equally poor educations (but frightening political agendas), who see evolution as a symbol of modernity (and modernism as a movement), which they would gladly turn back (although I don't suppose they'd like to trade in the SUV and give back the bigscreen TV).
Your grumpiness I definitely won't contest. "Push their religious beliefs...back in the middle ages..." blah blah blah. Dr., your originality is suffering. A little imagination reveals that a cranky scientist might have implications, and it's ok to smile at this stuff once in awhile. Someone was saying recently that an argument should be taken in the spirit in which it was written.
As to the rest, the appeal of good-humored, reasonable discussion is steadily growing on me.
Having recently pulled the evolution card, I think I'll save the politics card for a later date.
Post a Comment