Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Equal Time For Creationism

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-say-something-nice dept.

Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent design', the politically correct version of creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those same news sources, however, missed the recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than just a hypothesis'."

6 of 3,451 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not all opinions are of equal value by falzer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The American Geophysical Union also weighs in on this recent news.

    Quote:

    "Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

  2. Re:Film at 1100 A.D. by Proaxiom · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually the Catholic Church has generally stayed away from confrontations with scientific theory ever since getting egg on its face around the Galileo fiasco and heliocentrism.

    A nineteenth century pope (Leo the somethingth, I think) went so far as to lay out sensible boundaries for religion and science, essentially asserting that science has no business telling people what to believe about God, and the Church has no business entering into debates over empirical study.

    Accordingly, the Church has never actually opposed most of Darwinism, and has tacitly accepted it, with the critical caveats that Catholics cannot believe in the process being 'random', as whatever happened has to be part of God's plan. (Also, Catholics have to believe that humans exclusively have souls.)

    This position won't change any time soon, notwithstanding the odd vocal Archbishop.

  3. wow, way to spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not the first time to endorse creationism. Disingenous rat.

    The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
            Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, "He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught.... He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught."

            The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
            "I think it's an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas') I have no problem" with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.

            Reuters, November 4, 1999:
            Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, "I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed." Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.

  4. western governments NOT from Genesis by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The idea of Democratic Republics came from Rome and Greece before they were Christianized. These ideas were revived during the 17th/18th century Enlightment, first incorporated in the US government, then France and so on.

  5. Re:Here we go again... by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Informative

    > There is a huge difference here. With Muslims, the religous leaders are not standing up and preaching terrorism is bad.

    Hmm. I must have imagined this news report for the other day where "The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) released a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism last week"

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  6. Re:Wrong on both counts? by arevos · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't think so. At the level of specific constructs alleged to be examples of irreducible complexity, all a scientist has to do is demonstrate said construct arising outside of intentional design. Hence, ID is falsifiable in principle on a scientific level because its proponents suggest specific constructs found in nature that they hold to be examples of ID. In principle, this is no different than the falsifiability of evolution.

    You're incorrect. The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient. Indeed, most proponents of ID are Christians that believe that an all-powerful, all-seeing God created the Universe.

    Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable by observational evidence. With ID, because the Designer can be omnipotent and omniscient, any evidence can be faked, and therefore is no evidence at all. Indeed, with ID, the Universe could have been created a mere two seconds ago, and all of our memories mere fabrications.

    Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is falsifiable because, unlike ID, it is restricted by physical laws.