EVEN THOUGH DARWIN'S seminal work "the origin of species" was published in 1859, the scopes trial took place in 1925. The beautifully persuasive, emperically verifiable, provable process of evolution by natural selection had not been acceptd by all even after sixty five years of publication.
The high school science teacher who started all the trouble in tennessee by teaching about darwin, was not trying to change any of his student's religious views, not trying to cram evolution down their throats, and replace their faith with it.
He was simply informing them that the work of charles darwin is very convincing, it passes the test of reason, it stands up under the scrutingy of the skeptical scientific method, and is therefore the best effort science has thus far made to explain human existence.
The reaction he got, including his firing, his lawsuit, and bringing in william jennings bryan to argue the case against him, is still shocking, and alarming. A whole nation in an uproar because a man distinguished between science and religion, and tried to teach science? Amazing.
Even more amazing is the fact that in 2013 the situation has not fundamentally changed. Conservative christians no longer take to the streets when evolution is taught in american public schools; there is a limit to how foolish even they wish to appear.
But, for the most part, they still don't want to accept what is obvious, because the truth challenges the literal accuracy of their religious beliefs. There is currently a bill in the Oklahoma state legislature called something like "alternative scientific explanations and academic freedom".
You can tell by the title that they've updated their approach. Now, instead of insisting that science comply with their religion, they expouse the virtues of "alternative science", and "academic freedom". How laughable. Fundmentalist christians, advocating for academic freedom, as if seeking new knowledge is their great passion in life, rather then defending ancient, superstitious dogma.
The bill in Oklahoma would require teachers to cover religion in science classes. The christians don't like biological evolution, including chemical human origins, and they don't like global warming, or cloning. The last two exist whether they like it or not, and the first two are science, and, we must teach science in science classes, mustn't we? Offering students courses in comparative religions is also desirable. Then too, there are quite a few churches available.
No comments:
Post a Comment