Museums get into the Fight
The Dallas Morning News ran a story about how some natural science museums appear to be taking up the gauntlet and teaching evolution.
This is a trend I’ve noticed before. A museum in Australia, after some suggestions that it should provide a “more balanced” view, put up a sign saying “Evolution is a FACT.”
The Morning News story quotes some museum curators as saying they’ve even decided to stop worrying about hurting some folk’s sensibilities.
"In the past, we took the word 'evolution' out of our exhibits and said 'change through time.' We did that because we didn't want to incite anything. But I think we have to use that word and say this is what science tells us. If they're not teaching it in schools and we're not doing it, where are they going to get it?"
Aha, the education problem! This is where the press should be helping out and educating the American People as to the facts. And NO I am not proposing that the press become a spokesman for evolution, I am proposing that passing on the simple fact that the scientific community is convinced of the accuracy of evolution is well within the area of responsibility of the fourth estate.
"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting."
The time has come the walrus said to speak of many things. Like the bible says, “Come now, and let us reason together… If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.”
In the past science and rationality have always taken the “live and let live” approach toward religion, partially because they just didn’t care, but some religions continue to be hostile toward science. Perhaps the time has come for science to be hostile toward religion.
I suspect that religion and science are in a death struggle. In order for one to thrive, the other must whither and die. Personally I’d rather have science than religion. Maybe the time has come to stop kidding ourselves that the two can co-exist and recognize that we must choose one or the other.
The fact is that a sense of impending doom might be precisely why religion has chosen to assault science once again. This is a good moment because society has become so complex that there is a yearning among many folks for a simpler life. As a result of that yearning, some people are turning back to religion so its feeling a little empowered at the moment. With that empowerment has come some aggresiveness. But if push comes to shove, how many folks would REALLY want to give up the benefits of technology for a little emotional comfort?
Now I can hear the responses already to the effect that one can have both religion and technology. Well, not really, because the foundation of technology is science. If you assault science and try to hog tie it with dogma, you have to ultimately also reject the future benefits of technology because the science that it's based upon will cease to exist.
Which will you chose? Personally, I'll take science and technology over medieval superstition.
And yes I'm serious when I imply that ultimately one may have to choose either science and technology or religion. Science will continue to peel away the fear and superstition upon which religion is based and the hostility of religion can only grow. Yet that very science is the foundation of technology; one cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of the science being assaulted and undercut by religion. Eventually something is going to have to give.
This is why I have a hard time "respecting" religious beliefs; I suspect that eventually the demise of religion is necessary for mankind to continue to advance.
It probably won't happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year. It probably won't happen in the next 50 years, but eventually, it must happen if the human race is to survive and flourish. A race that refuses to apply its sole competitive advantage, its intelligence, is doomed wouldn't you say?
This is a trend I’ve noticed before. A museum in Australia, after some suggestions that it should provide a “more balanced” view, put up a sign saying “Evolution is a FACT.”
The Morning News story quotes some museum curators as saying they’ve even decided to stop worrying about hurting some folk’s sensibilities.
"In the past, we took the word 'evolution' out of our exhibits and said 'change through time.' We did that because we didn't want to incite anything. But I think we have to use that word and say this is what science tells us. If they're not teaching it in schools and we're not doing it, where are they going to get it?"
Aha, the education problem! This is where the press should be helping out and educating the American People as to the facts. And NO I am not proposing that the press become a spokesman for evolution, I am proposing that passing on the simple fact that the scientific community is convinced of the accuracy of evolution is well within the area of responsibility of the fourth estate.
"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting."
The time has come the walrus said to speak of many things. Like the bible says, “Come now, and let us reason together… If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.”
In the past science and rationality have always taken the “live and let live” approach toward religion, partially because they just didn’t care, but some religions continue to be hostile toward science. Perhaps the time has come for science to be hostile toward religion.
I suspect that religion and science are in a death struggle. In order for one to thrive, the other must whither and die. Personally I’d rather have science than religion. Maybe the time has come to stop kidding ourselves that the two can co-exist and recognize that we must choose one or the other.
The fact is that a sense of impending doom might be precisely why religion has chosen to assault science once again. This is a good moment because society has become so complex that there is a yearning among many folks for a simpler life. As a result of that yearning, some people are turning back to religion so its feeling a little empowered at the moment. With that empowerment has come some aggresiveness. But if push comes to shove, how many folks would REALLY want to give up the benefits of technology for a little emotional comfort?
Now I can hear the responses already to the effect that one can have both religion and technology. Well, not really, because the foundation of technology is science. If you assault science and try to hog tie it with dogma, you have to ultimately also reject the future benefits of technology because the science that it's based upon will cease to exist.
Which will you chose? Personally, I'll take science and technology over medieval superstition.
And yes I'm serious when I imply that ultimately one may have to choose either science and technology or religion. Science will continue to peel away the fear and superstition upon which religion is based and the hostility of religion can only grow. Yet that very science is the foundation of technology; one cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of the science being assaulted and undercut by religion. Eventually something is going to have to give.
This is why I have a hard time "respecting" religious beliefs; I suspect that eventually the demise of religion is necessary for mankind to continue to advance.
It probably won't happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year. It probably won't happen in the next 50 years, but eventually, it must happen if the human race is to survive and flourish. A race that refuses to apply its sole competitive advantage, its intelligence, is doomed wouldn't you say?
posted by Alencon at 1:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home