Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

I see that my facetious question generated a bit of response.  I think we
all know what creationists mean by "theory" as distinct from what scientists
mean.  I did have an interesting vision of the judge denying the suit to
have the insert removed, and then pointing out that the insert essentially
said that all students had to study evolution and take it seriously in an
"open minded" fashion as the county had clearly demanded.

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, John Clement wrote:
>
> > Why should anyone object to labeling evolution as a theory, which indeed
> > it is?  And it should be approached with an open mind and studied
> > carefully and critically.
>
> This labeling was a Creationist ploy to make Evolution appear on shaky
> ground.  We can reason that if something is a theory, therefore it must be
> "ONLY a theory,"  and therefore it has nothing to do with well-verified
> knowledge.  Their ploy is a logical fallacy, and we should object loudly.
>
> It's admirable to question knowledge, but when an enemy starts using our
> self-questioning as part of a distortion attempt, it's time to resist that
> ploy.  Instead turn the spotlight of critical questioning on that enemy.
> For example, what do you call a supposed Christian who uses lies and
> distortion to sway an audience?  From what I've seen of some Creationist
> articles, their authors seem to think that dishonesty is just fine if it's
> part of a fight against unbelievers.
>
>
> > Of course as a counter response the biblical creation story should be
> > labeled as a creation myth, and it too should be studied carefully and
> > critically.
>
> Exactly.  Another response: label such things as CHRISTIAN.  One thing
> that keeps getting swept under the table is the idea that The Goddess
> created the universe, or the Hindu Pantheon did it, or even that Allah did
> it.  Newspaper articles miss this point, and they promote the creationist
> cause by talking as if the word "religion" was synonymous with
> "Christianity."  Creationists very specifically are NOT arguing in support
> of religion, instead they are arguing in support of Christianity.  The
> quoted article is wrong.  They aren't trying to inject religious concepts
> into school science, instead they are trying to inject CHRISTIAN concepts,
> and this unfairly gives advantage to one particular religion.
>
> Here's my own ploy.  Regardless of what certain politicians seem to think,
> Christianity is not the state religion of the USA, and if we're going to
> start mentioning God (or actually Jehovah) in our biology textbooks, then
> we absolutely MUST give equal time to Muslims, Pagans... and certainly to
> the Church of Satan.

Some Christians would object to creationism being labeled Christian.  I have
a copy of a NYTimes article in which the Vatican's astronomer expounds and
explains evolution.  He also points out that the Roman Catholic church
accepts the theory of evolution.  Of course the evangelical Christians who
support creationism would then say that Roman Catholics are not Christians.
They might have to apply the same label to many other denominations such as
Episcopalians, European Lutherans ...  They are trying to inject their
particular sectarian interpretation, which is not endorsed by most Christian
denominations, or Jewish congregations.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX