Stealth attack on the facts
TIME magazine, January 31 2005 ran an article entitled Stealth Attack On Evolution, by Michael D Lemonick. I just had to comment, because it’s an interesting example of the problems that the USA and many other countries have with dealing with God in the classroom (of course, “Putting God in the classroom is clearly illegal”, as the article states).
According to Lemonick, there is a battle going on between two sides. Here are some of his descriptions of each:
| Pro-Evolution moderates tens of thousands of scientists mainstream scientific community biologists Eugenie Scott (exec. director US National Center for Science Education) |
Anti-Evolution conservatives 350 scientists well-funded think tanks anti-evolution activists George Gilder (the US’s leading male-chauvinist-pig author according to TIME 1974) Discovery Institute, funded by ultra-conservative Howard F Ahmanson Jr |
Hmmmm…I wonder whose side the author of the article is on? So here we have a plot by a few wealthy activists to change what is taught in the classroom by the mainstream scientific community (including all biologists). How dare they? How shocking! They’re trying to discredit the well thought out theory of evolution and sneak in religion in its place!
The problem is not that the article is pro-evolution. No matter what side of the dispute you’re on (evolution, creation, a mixture or another theory), you might see a problem with this article, if you read it. The problem is that if truth leads us anywhere near something spiritual or religious, it must be kept out of the classroom. Truth must always be sacrificed if it means that there’s some relation to spiritual things. This point of view attempts to claim that “religion” has no relation to everyday life – it’s only a compartment of our lives that should not intrude on anything else. The same people that complain that religion has held back science (a questionable belief in itself) want to respond not by letting faith and science come together, but by ignoring any spiritual implication of science.
Allowing the facts to speak for themselves is one thing. Setting aside facts because they smell a little religious is swinging to the opposite extreme. The article itself admits that “some legitimate scientists think I.D. [intelligent design] is more persuasive [than evolution].” But whatever we do, let’s not let them have a voice. They’re just too religious. And religion cannot have any relation to truth, because – well, because that’s what the smart people believe!