Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?
Funksaw writes "Here's an op-ed by first-time politician, long-time Slashdotter Brian Boyko, where he talks about his experiences testifying at the Texas Board of Education in favor of having real science in science textbooks. But beyond that, he also tries to examine, philosophically, why there is such hardened resistance to the idea of evolution in Texas. From the article: '[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. And this is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally damn oneself. So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.'"
It is a simplistic view. I feel Feynman puts it more maturely than I can... http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm
That's the creationist side as seen by someone on the side of science, but it is not at all how the creationists view themselves. They aren't afraid of their faith being tested, because they believe their arguments are unbeatable and their faith secure - though they may worry about their children being lead astray.
The key to understanding creationists is to realise that it isn't about creationism itsself. They have, as they would proudly call it, a 'God-centered worldview.' Everything comes down in some manner to their religious beliefs. Not just creationism, but their moral and political views, their attachment to national identity, their community, and their general vision of how things 'should be' in the world. They view Christianity not just as another religion among many, but as a defining aspect of western civilisation and that element which makes it great and has brought such prosperity through the ages.
They also believe that Christianity and morality are one and the same. God is the standard of morality, the definition, and the source. Only Christians, as followers of the true God, know how to be moral people. Others might perform a reasonable immitation by following some social norms, but they are just denying that Christianity is their source. This is why they insist upon placing the ten commandments on public buildings: For them, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is the very reason murder is illegal: Had God not proclaimed that, and the faithful not kept it, then there would be no way for people to realise murder is an immoral act. Likewise for the theft thing.
So that which threatens the doctrine of creation is far more concerning than a scientific debate: It is nothing less than an existential threat to civilisation itsself. Their concern is that if the population in general lose belief in the bible as inerrant - not belief in Christianity in general, but belief in the rock-solid beyond-debate 'truth' of the bible - then they will lose all spiritual direction. The bible will become fuzzy, a document where people can dismiss bits they don't like (The irony of this is quite lost on them as they happily tuck into their pork sausages). Before you know it, homosexuality will be accepted, prayer will be illegal, everyone will be having casual sex and marriage will be a thing of the past. Then people will start worshiping pagan idols, gangs of violent atheists will start roaming the streets killing people for fun, and eventually God will abandon the country and send the communists to take over and punish everyone.
That's why they are so insistant. They believe the bible is the foundation for America and western civilisation in general. Take away the foundation, and the whole structure collapses. Creationism and patriotism are intertwined, almost inseperable.
I grew up in Texas and have lived here all of my life. The resistance to evolution can be summed up in one sentence:
"You can't tell me what to fuckin' believe!"
If some long haired city boy told them their face was on fire the'd refuse to believe it, basically.
Having read Genesis, I have had a question that no one has been able to answer to my satisfaction, since I was 8 years old.
Genesis 4:17 "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch."
Where did Cain's wife come from?
We have Adam (allegedly made by God), then God anesthetizes him to extract a rib to make Eve.(cloning?)
Then Adam and Eve have Cain, then Abel. Cain kills Abel, God marks him and 'runs him out of town'.
Then Cain gets married...and has a kid, then builds a city.
Married to who? Eve?(at this stage Eve is the ONLY female on the planet, supposedly) Then Cain built a city. A city? For whom? WTF is going on here?
So....my take on all of this is:
Adam is screwing his gender-changed clone, and making babies; the baby boy is screwing either his mother, or his imagination, and they have a kid.
So, all humans come from this mess?
Or...
Quantum physics has been getting weaker all of this time...back then there were people popping into existence, now we only get sub-atomic particles popping in, soon to be 'nothing' popping in, then the process reverses?
Or....
Recreational drugs were much better back when this book was written, than they were in the 1960's and 1970's.
Whew!!!! Enoch's family tree looks like a coconut tree...straight trunk, no branches, and just a few nuts at the top. Holy Hapsburgs, Batman!
And that's just the first handful of chapters in this book so many people have tried to get me to take seriously all of my remembered life! No thanks!!!
And don't even get me started on the biggest con job ever pulled on a husband....Immaculate Conception!
"Honest dear hubby, it was either that toilet seat in Jerusalem, or God did it!"
Hmmmm...Does this mean Jesus was a bastard? Oh, the Irony!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Interesting you mention that as I was reading recently about people who have had their corneas removed, and the little smidgen of new 'purple' they can see as a result of that little bit of extra spectrum coming through. Quite surprised the retina detects it but there you go eh.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The bulk of the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not just Aramaic. Also, there is no "original" bible. We have fragments. Some rather large ones (Textus Receptus, Textus Sinaiticus, and Testus Vaticinus." Which adds to your translation of a translation thought.
As someone who has done Biblical translations...
There has been much study done on the various texts, and ones found from quite a long time ago, e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls. What has been found is that the "Old Testament" was kept very rigorlessly and was virtually unchanged after centuries. The Levite Priests in charge of copying the texts would typically destroy copies that had even a single stroke out of place. Yes, others outside the temple also made copies, but they were not considered authoritative copies - and those copies would usually end up with commentary as well.
Most of the debate about texts does not occur over the "Old Testament" texts written in Hebrew, but the "New Testament" texts written in Greek. The entire "New Testament" was written first in Greek; Aramaic versions would have been translations much like our English versions are. Quite a few of the texts for the "New Testament" have been proven to be passed down without change; the issue comes in that there has had to be many comparisons done as monks would write their commentaries in the margins in many cases and those commentaries became hard to decipher.
Regarding what is considered to be the "Canonical" text - that is what makes up the official Bible - that was settled in 300 A.D and has not changed since. There is a secondary set of books called the Apocrapha that some consider to be part of the Bible, however those books did not meet the requisite criteria for the council in 300 A.D for them to be considered "Canonical" texts. Many things, like David Brown's DaVinci Code, rely more on the Apocrapha texts to do what they do.
Most Prostestant churches view the Apocrapha as having some value as a secondary source, but do not consider it to be equal to the Bible. The "Book of Mormon", on the other hand, is considered heresy.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)