Theocracy averted in Michigan and Ohio
by KrauzeIn the discussion over whether a US theocracy is right around the corner, one of the points I have been making is this: Again and again, we have seen attempts to merely teach criticism of evolution crumble. If those dastardly "religionists" cannot even manage this, what reason is there to believe that far more marginalized groups will succeed in re-writing the Constitution to turn the US into a theocracy?
As if on cue, this point was further fortified the other day, when both Michigan and Ohio rejected attempts to teach criticisms of evolution. More at Dispatches from the Culture Wars and The Beacon Journal.
For those of us who realize that we are living in a post-wedge world, none of this is very surprising. But those critics who still cling to rhetoric about the Coming Theocracy will soon have to look for new things to be alarmed over.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Hi Krauze,
As I said in another thread, I'm not concerned about the coming theocracy. However, the reason that creationist efforts to inject pseudoscience into public school curriculums in Michigan and Ohio failed is because of very hard work by concerned citizens. The creationists have also made it clear that they are not going to give up and go home (school); they have every intention of continuing to try to dilute public school science classes with their religious beliefs. The Coming Theocracy isn't the only reason to defend school science standards from attacks by creationists, and as Kansas showed, becoming complacent just allows the creationists to come back for a second try.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 12, 2006 @ 9:35 am
October 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am
What do you suggest? Steel tipped boots and bats? You paint 'creationists' up to be such an underhanded, deceiving group. They are just pushing their ideals to the fore as you push yours.
And that ol' creationist perspective (that you call pseudoscience) comes from the same source that gave you the idea that the universe is rational and follows immutable laws. You should be more nice to them (creationists); since you get to base your labeling of what is science and what is pseudoscience against the theme of a rational cosmos that came from their biblical approach.
Comment by Doug — October 12, 2006 @ 11:58 am
October 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
It will be interesting to see how all these developments affect the rise of ID in college courses. The move to get ID discussed at the university level is in its infancy. Bill Dembski's "ID Bridge between science and theology" would be an excellent theme for philosophy and religion departments. It think creationism's trojan horse should be offered to the religion departments in attempt to sneak science into religion.
What would be important in polling is seeing the effect a few years from now of these developments on the graduates. Do they accept ID despite being in a post-wedge world?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 12, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"As I said in another thread, I'm not concerned about the coming theocracy."
I know. You are one of the few critics who acknowledge the vacuity of the theocracy rhetoric.
"However, the reason that creationist efforts to inject pseudoscience into public school curriculums in Michigan and Ohio failed is because of very hard work by concerned citizens."
If we compare the budgets of the various groups, I think we'll find that it were the people pushing for curricula changes that put in the greatest effort. However, none of that matters, as I have never claimed that ID critics should stop their activizing. This illustrates the beauty of democracy, where concerned citizens got together and stopped special interest groups from co-opting education (of course, if we didn't have a centralized school system, we wouldn't have these special interest groups to begin with, but that's a different rant).
Comment by Krauze — October 12, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
October 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Hi Doug,
Not at all, and that approach wasn't necessary to defeat creationism in Kansas, Ohio and Michigan. It does require concerned citizens be aware and active.
That was the creationists of 200 years ago; the ones who were willing to admit that the geological record did not provide evidence of a global flood. Today's creationists, far from believing in a rational cosmos, speculate about ad hoc miracles to explain away the evidence.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 17, 2006 @ 9:35 am
October 17th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
The geological record does indeed provide evidence of a global Flood. "Ad hoc" miracles? No more than the "ad hoc" miracle which supposedly occurred at the "Big Bang" - at least the Creationist version is rationally consistent with everyday experience….life comes from life; without intelligent intervention, information degrades, etc..
Comment by Douglas — October 17, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
October 18th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Hello Douglas,
You should publish your findings in a peer reviewed geological journal; somehow all geologists who don't have a prior commitment to a belief in a global flood haven't been able to recognize the evidence of a global flood for nearly two centuries. You will surely win a Nobel Prize for such paradigm shattering evidence!
Comment by Aagcobb — October 18, 2006 @ 1:55 am
October 18th, 2006 at 4:30 am
Awesome!
Comment by Douglas — October 18, 2006 @ 4:30 am