Mood: Amped!
Listening to: Christmas music in the background
Appeals Panel Criticizes Evolution Ruling - Los Angeles Times
I know... the LA Times right? The story is quite good, however. It takes a careful reading because it's written in a very circuitous manner (or just not very well.) The gist of the story is that a school district in Georgia had placed stickers in biology text books that stated: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." While I would challenge the notion that evolution concerns the origin of living things (as opposed to the origin of species, which is decidedly different,) The sticker presents clear facts about the long and twisted (often erroneous) history of the theory of evolution. The ACLU and some bored parents decided that this statement can mean only one thing: God created the earth and all the creatures in seven days just like the Bible says. So, they sued to have the sticker removed and somehow convinced a judge that they were right.
The problem is that Evolution IS a theory. A theory that has been revised and reconsidered hundreds of times in the past 100 years by a passionate community of specialists who disagree about what is actually going on and how it's going on more than they agree on any one theory. Charles Darwin's original concept of Evolution is so far removed from the current theory that one can hardly even call him the father of the theory at all. He was one of many men of his time working on these issues. If the basis of scientific investigation is skepticism then why would the ACLU take on such a crusade to defend the infallibility of evolution? Clearly it is in the interest of science to welcome skepticism, as it only serves to strengthen accepted theories and discover new ones. Why the inquisition?
If you spotted the use of religious terminology there, then you're sharp enough to spot the School Board's attorney's irony when he's quoted as saying, " "The whole genesis of the stickers is because people were upset by an improvement the school made." Very funny stuff. But it should stir some discomfort in the back of the minds of people genuinely concerned about the prevalence of over-zealous opinion in public policy... or at the ACLU. It has been suggested in numerous places that Liberalism (or it's associated causes) has assumed the status of a religion in the modern world. People to place the intrinsic human need for blind faith in something on the shoulders of science, environmentalism, or even liberalism in general. History teaches us that blind faith in anything (regardless of its inherent nobility) makes us ripe for manipulation. Look at the crusades of the middle ages or modern Islamic terrorism, the Nazi holocaust and its foundation in Eugenics. All human things are corruptable, and attaching blind faith to the corruptible is a recipe for disaster. Any ideology, belief, opinion, theory, fact, concept, religion or movement that demands blind allegiance to itself (or more subtly, one that makes a policy of crushing opposition to itself,) is dangerous. The most dangerous are those that engage in convoluted arguments that place them above reproach... this gives an idea carte blanc to violate every human dignity in pursuit of some goal which is temporarily viewed as more important than basic human rights.
That sounds like a lot of different things... The real point of it is whether a movement or idea allows criticism of itself. Sometimes things need to be done which might violate basic human rights... if the need for such actions is the result of open and free debate then one cannot argue with the process. If the process of making that decision is based on blind faith or skewed by ideological intimidation then it is to be feared.
If you look at American culture today, take notice of what ideas are viewed as immutable which are unthinkable. Within your own sub-cultures, look at what concepts would provoke violent oppopsition. Larry Elder has written a book entitled "
Ten Things You Can't Say In America" which details many of them. I'm certainly not advocating any of them today... but I am alarmed by our reluctance to consider them, especially when there is some evidence to support the ideas. If you were to go to a party tonight and take the factual position that evolution is just a theory (actually a collection of theories,) or that global warming is an opinion based on extremely limited scientific evidence. I'd face some rather unpleasant opposition (especially at the party I'll be attending tonight, HAH!) I might get called ignorant or unintelligent or mired in an antiquated mythology that blinds me to the truth. If you were to pick a more opinion based argument like whether affirmative action is relevant today, you'd probably get called a racist or worse... just for questioning the validity of a 40 year old government program. Nuts! Why can't we question affirmative action? or evolution? or global warming?
My suspicion is always that these ideas don't want to be examined. Kind of like a guy who won't go to the doctor because he might find out that there is something wrong with him. Well it's probably the same for ideas... that guy is going to have something wrong with him even if he doesn't go to the doctor. He might die or be unable to drive a car safely and end up killing someone else. It's tragic because a simple trip to the doctor might have prevented the accident if it weren't for pride. Ideologies are the same way. A flawed ideology given enough power can set policies that negatively affect millions of lives. If someone questions a popular ideology they will get shouted down or physically harmed by the faithful in order to preserve it. However, whether an ideology is questioned has little bearing on whether it is intrinsically flawed or not. If it's wrong it's going to be wrong even if opponents are attacked or ostracized... in the end the damage they cause could have been prevented by some simple open debate or a routine examination.
Question _All_ Authorities... not just the ones you disagree with.
