I choose science
My forehead is slightly flatter today than it was yesterday. That’s because of the time I spent pounding it against my desktop last night when I learned that the President of the United States thinks that it makes perfect sense to combine science classes with folklore and mythology instead of having them in separate buildings. Tom Burka had the best perspective I’ve seen on the issue:
The White House announced today that President Bush would henceforth determine the scientific curriculum to be taught in America’s schools. The announcement came immediately after Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design.
President Bush apparently wants to adopt a modified pre-Copernican view of astronomy, to start. “This whole notion that the universe does not revolve around our great nation, our great planet, seems kind of crazy,” he told reporters yesterday.
Bush was also skeptical about what he called “the notion of gravity.” “I’m uncomfortable with teaching our children that bodies are attracted to each other,” he said. “That seems like an unwholesome idea to put into children’s heads, don’t it?” He speculated that objects fall to the ground because “God wants them to.”
Maybe we should all suggest appropriate additions to our local school curriculums. For instance, instead of teaching high school students about how modern manufacturing systems work, why not provide this alternate explanation?
Also, in next year’s Federal budget, I want to see R&D funding for alternate energy systems based on dilithium crystals. Scotty would’ve wanted it.
23 Responses to I choose science
Peter, you could say the same about gravity. Or the speed of light. Both are conclusions that are are fully consisted with the results of tests and observation.
Ed:
The problem here is, if you look at the ultimate conclusion of the theory of evolution, it is not yet fully consistent with the results of tests and observations. There are a lot of open questions and lots of missing proof/evidence. Those questions may be answered someday and that proof may be found, but for now, it requires (for me, at least) a great deal of faith to accept it as the final answer.
What I find interesting is that no matter what one’s view of origins, they always seem to find that the evidence supports their initial view. If someone believes 100% in evolution, everything they see/read/find/study seems to support it. If someone believes 100% in “intelligent design”, what they see/read/find/study seems to support it. Unfortunately, both sides are starting with an assumption.
I’m not sure I’ve heard a theory of origin that I could grab hold of and claim 100%. Fortunately, it doesn’t really affect my daily life a whole lot.
Actually, I’m not sure I agree with you on gravity and the speed of light requiring faith. Both are measurable. Evolution (the ultimate conclusion) is not, as surely as “intelligent design” is not.
What makes anyone think it was intellegent design anyway. Not-So-Intellegent design seems a more likely possibility to me, given the number of defective units I’ve seen. Also, what makes anyone think that if the Theory of Evolution is wrong or incomplete that their fantasy of choice is any more likely to be true?