I have problems with this guy. He's Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the current creationism movement here in the US.
You can read more about him here: Phillip Johnson. Oh, and just to get an idea of his scientific credibility, he's an AIDS Denialist.
Lets look at his quotes shall we:
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
Glad you admitted this, Mr Johnson. Now then, if it isn't about science, why do you want it taught in a science class?
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into schools."
Two major problems here. First of all, God. This nation is a nation where there are hundreds of different religions that people worship. We may be, by majority, a Christian nation, but by the Constitution, we are not. Look at the First Amendment, Mr. Johnson. I believe there is a bit there about Freedom of Religion and the establishment cause. Public schools are NOT suppose to teach a mandatory class on religion, because this violates the establishment clause. If you want God in schools, found a private school. Government funded schools cannot teach about God and it should not because this is a nation with multitudes of religions.
Secondly, the academic world does not want god in their studies. Scientists, even scientists who do believe in god, have all agreed upon the theory of evolution and the big bang. They do not want god in their studies, because god is supernatural and science deals with the natural.
"The objective he said is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs the non-existence of God. From there, people are introduced to the truth of the Bible, then the 'question of sin' and finally introduced to Jesus."
Oh boy. First of all, there is no 'Darwinism.' No one worships Darwin, no one prays to Darwin. Adherents of the scientific theory of evolution, are called 'evolutionists,' a ridiculous term, but thanks to the creationist movement, we need it. Funny, people who believe in 'gravitation aren't called 'gravitationists.' And yet, gravitation is a scientific theory, just like evolution. Even more so, gravitation lead to the theory of the big bang, another theory you Creationists don't like. And yet you don't argue against gravitation. I wonder about this, but I digress. Adherents of a scientific theory are not similar to followers of a religion, rather they are people who have studied the theory and decided that the evidence for the theory is solid. Those who disagree with theories, within the academic world, don't simply disagree on a whim, rather they disagree with a theory by either providing evidence of an alternate theory, or by stating that the evidence for the theory is unsound, following rationality and logic.
When one disagrees with a theory, one provides scientific evidence for the disagreement. The Bible is not scientifically validated. The Bible cannot be tested thus it is not a science book, nor is it full of scientific principles. If the academic world had an argument against evolution, they would not be looking at the bible, but at something that can be observed with empirical senses and testable hypothesis's.
Also, if evolution was entirely discredited, you still will not have proven creationism until you have found empirical evidence or created a testable hypothesis which supports creationism. The academic world will continuously reject creationism as a science until this happens. And until then, it remains outside of a science class.
Secondly, evolution is not atheistic. Evolution is agnostic when you think about it. An atheist claims there is no god. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever. It does not disprove god, nor does it mention there being one. Evolution is an agnostic theory, in terms of god. Agnosticism means, 'without knowledge' and evolution is without knowledge of God. Again, God is supernatural, why would a naturalistic theory contain the supernatural?
Third, we do not want the debate of atheism vs theism in a science class or in a publicly funded school in a mandatory class. Establishment clause, First Amendment. This argument belongs in a separate, non-mandatory, philosophy class, not in a biology class.
Fourth, the 'truth' of the Bible. What gives the Bible more authority than any other religious text? How is it more authoritative than the Qu'ran or Hindu scripts or anything else? Because god said the Bible is the only word of god? But that's what the Hindus say about their scriptures and what the Muslims say about the Qu'ran! The Bible bases its authority on itself and that principle is inherently flawed. It's like me saying I'm the King of England because I bloody say so!
Last, it introduces us to Jesus. That's great. I learned about Jesus in world history in high school, just a cursory glance at him, after all, he is a historical figure. The class was secular and objective. And that is how anyone should learn about Jesus in a publicly funded school. Give him as much of an introduction as any other historical religious figure, such as Mohammad. Both he and Mohammad did make a major mark in human history, no matter what you believe about the two.
But to claim he's the Son of God? To claim he's the savior of mankind? Save that stuff for the pulpit, Mr. Johnson. If kids want to learn about the divinity of Jesus, they can GO TO CHURCH.
"I have built an intellectual movement in universities and churches that we call the Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers the program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."
An intellectual movement. Really. With stars like Kent Hovind who believes the world was wrapped in an ice shield before Noah and the flood (Kent Hovind) and also believes that base pairs have genes inside them (other way around, asshole). This man was a high school biology teacher and he didn't understand the basics of dioxyribonucleic acid? He also claimed that, before the flood, iguanas could grow into triceratops. Or how about the guy I posted in an earlier video who claims that dinosaurs roamed around with primative men five-thousand years ago?
An intellectual movement which ignores mountains upon mountains of evidence, developed by intellectuals in the scientific community, brains like Einstein, Darwin, Oppenheimer, the list goes on, in order to indoctrinate children with Christian mythology? This is is madness! (this is Sparta?). This is an anti-intellectual movement. Did you know, Mr. Johnson, that every extragalactic star is over six thousand light years away, proving that the universe is a tad older than 6000 years? But no, you look at the starlight and claim 'god made it in-transit.'
The Wedge. Great, now you admitted your strategy. You intend to push and shove and move goalposts around until your little Bible fantasy story fits neatly into a science class. This tells me that you know creationism is not science and merely wish to push your beliefs on children in America, corrupting and weakening our science curriculum by injecting your malicious and sinister indoctrination. This is more than wrong. This is a purposeful intent to deceive impressionable minds into believing what you want them to believe. This is beyond unconstitutional, this is beyond immoral. This is evil.
Last, science is materialistic. This the nature of science. It deals with the materials of this universe. What the hell else is it for? Science cares about how, not why. Philosophy is why. If a non-materialistic course is what you want, try philosophy.
Stop trying to poison the minds of students across the United States.
Stop making the US educational system the laughing stock of the world.
Stop this evil madness.
Creationism. Is. Not. Science.
J Kuhl Signing Off
No comments:
Post a Comment