Line seen in
sdorn's LJ
Jan. 8th, 2008 08:27 amBewildered and frustrated at the survival of creationism as pseudo-science?
Well, no. Hardly at all. Any more than I'm bewildered and frustrated at the survival of Hinduism, the folk beliefs of the Kazakhs, or the Australian aboriginal belief in the Dreamtime, none of which seem to get quite as much stick as this one belief system. Pseudo-science is just belief with diagrams.
I like a pluralistic society, a plurality of ideas. Anything that lessens that plurality, that tries to rule ideas out of existence, is to me a bad thing. I also like a plurality of callings, where some people are scientists and practise real science, and the rest of us don't have to if we don't want to.
I can see being bewildered and frustrated if the teaching of pseudo-science were being globally enforced and the teaching of real science were being globally excluded, and if that is successfully happening in America, then I apologise, there is genuine cause for alarm, though it's probably too late. But the mere existence of a Creation Museum excites me no more than the existence of the Enterprise model in the Smithsonian Institution ("but...but...some people might believe that Star Trek was REAL OMGRACGBH!!!1!!"). Though I'm sure they're grateful for the free publicity they'll be getting from people complaining about them.
This is what I believe. We do not, under any circumstances, have the right to dictate what is in other people's heads. Any more than extremist Christians or Muslims or Communists do. If we lose sight of that, then we are no better than they. And if anyone is hoping that among the first acts of a successful Democratic president will be to declare anathema on creationism and enforce the teaching of scientific rationalism as a pseudo-religion, then I have to say that I do not share that hope.
Well, no. Hardly at all. Any more than I'm bewildered and frustrated at the survival of Hinduism, the folk beliefs of the Kazakhs, or the Australian aboriginal belief in the Dreamtime, none of which seem to get quite as much stick as this one belief system. Pseudo-science is just belief with diagrams.
I like a pluralistic society, a plurality of ideas. Anything that lessens that plurality, that tries to rule ideas out of existence, is to me a bad thing. I also like a plurality of callings, where some people are scientists and practise real science, and the rest of us don't have to if we don't want to.
I can see being bewildered and frustrated if the teaching of pseudo-science were being globally enforced and the teaching of real science were being globally excluded, and if that is successfully happening in America, then I apologise, there is genuine cause for alarm, though it's probably too late. But the mere existence of a Creation Museum excites me no more than the existence of the Enterprise model in the Smithsonian Institution ("but...but...some people might believe that Star Trek was REAL OMGRACGBH!!!1!!"). Though I'm sure they're grateful for the free publicity they'll be getting from people complaining about them.
This is what I believe. We do not, under any circumstances, have the right to dictate what is in other people's heads. Any more than extremist Christians or Muslims or Communists do. If we lose sight of that, then we are no better than they. And if anyone is hoping that among the first acts of a successful Democratic president will be to declare anathema on creationism and enforce the teaching of scientific rationalism as a pseudo-religion, then I have to say that I do not share that hope.