posted
Oh goodie, now we have to put up with Tim walking around, chest puffed out, penis errect, shouting behold my partially-used instrument! My manness is awesome, and could be in you today!"
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Though I'm not at all sure the thread can support it, I've got some more information about what it used to be about.
Today, the 12th of February, happens to be Charles Darwin's birthday. In recognition of this, CWU, which happens to be my school of the moment, held a sort of 'let's get to know Darwin/evolution' affair this evening. Included on the panel were two professors of biology, a Methodist minister, and the honorable Senator Hochstetter, who happens to be the local representative. Senator Hochstetter is also the sponsor of some legislation whose relationship to evolutionary biology is, shall we say, antagonistic.
Each panelist had something like 20 minutes in which to make a small presentation. There was a brief biography of Darwin, a very brief summation of the past 150 years of evolutionary sciences, an interesting discussion of the connnections between faith and science, and, finally, the Senator's presentation, titled "We have reason to be uneasy," taken, so he said, from a passage (or perhaps a book title) by C.S. Lewis.
The Senator's position was this, essentially:
1.) It is illegal for the state of Washington to sponser anything which contradicts the Constitution of the United States of America or the principles thereof, which are, according to the Senator, summed up in the Declaration of Independance.
2.) The Declaration of Independance states that the source of rights is "the Creator." The Senator did not go into the exact nature of this entity.
3.) Evolution denies that human rights extend from a creator of any kind.
4.) Therefore it is illegal to teach it in a public school.
This was not, however, the meat of the argument. The Senator went on to describe how evolution is responsible, apparently primarily so, for the deaths of several hundred million people during the 20th century. Furthermore, via examples of the so called Piltdown and Nebraska man hoaxes of the early part of this century and that prior, the Senator claimed that the scientific community has been silent and refused to address any of the precepts of evolutionary theory, or indeed allow close examination of any of its scientific results.
Lastly, the Senator intimated that, since the "sources" of evolution and the United States of America are so different, it was difficult (though he did not say impossible, nor, in fact, explicitly say any of this) to imagine someone being able to support both.
The Senator ended his talk with a paraphrased story from the book of...John, I believe, about two apostles running to the tomb of Christ to discover his absence, and then running out into the rest of the world to spread the news. "What tomb," the Senator then asked, "are you running to?"
In conclusion: this author strained his eye muscles thanks to a repetitive rolling motion. Prior to this evening, I considered this entire issue weird, but not actively dangerous. Legislators have a habit of writing bills they know cannot pass to curry favor with certain members of their constituancy. The morality of that is debatable, I suppose, but it's clearly not illegal, nor do I think it really should be.
But to imply that people who believe in evolution are somehow anti-freedom and un-American, especially in times such as these, goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable realpolitik, in my opinion.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...the Constitution of the United States of America or the principles thereof, which are, according to the Senator, summed up in the Declaration of Independance."
Perhaps I'm just un-American, but wouldn't the priniciples of the Constitution be summed up in the Constitution? And wouldn't anything summed up in the DoI be the priniciples of the DoI?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the idea was that it represents the principles of the US as a nation, rather than the constitution specifically. Sorry.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The esteemed gentleman from Washington is a nutball. I, a nonscientist, would eat him alive in a debate. I am certain an evolutionary scientist and/or the folks at talk.origins would not only eat him alive, but painlessly (for them)regurgitate him in a mess in the porcelain god.
quote:the scientific community has been silent and refused to address any of the precepts of evolutionary theory, or indeed allow close examination of any of its scientific results.
My aunt Ruth, they have. Ignorant savage.
Where's this guy's political web page? I have a scalding email to write!
[ February 13, 2002, 12:06: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
