by Chris Alexion, Copyright August 16, 2005, all rights reserved. 281 views
The August 15 issue of Time dedicates the cover story to the "Evolution Wars" being fought in school boards across the country, now heightened by Bush's support of Intelligent Design teaching in the gov schools. Three concepts sprung out at me from the article.
For one thing, the language is seriously slanted. There are exceptions, but for the most part opponents of evolution are called "anti-darwinists," "critics of Darwin," and even "Darwin-doubters." But supporters of evolution go by the perfectly fair monikers of "scientists," "biologists," and–my personal favorite–"science teachers." (Just what are the people on the other side of the school board debate? Janitors?)
For example, in a text box on page 30, we see a "Face-Off: Darwinians [yes, they actually used the term here] vs. Anti-Darwinians" on the development of the eye. Two paragraphs, one presenting each side's arguments, appear. The first one begins, "The eye couldn't possibly be the product of accidental mutations, say Darwin's critics." The second begins, "Nonsense, say biologists." Again, the contrast is amusing. Apparently those thinkers who came to different conclusions about the eye are all mortgage brokers.
A second theme I noticed in the article was a pious deference to "scientists." In an earlier post on "The Empiricist Takeover" I pointed out that "science" has come to dominate philosophy and theology even though the empiricist view of science is just one kind of philosophy. Here we see scientists as the priests of the new empirical temple. Suffused throughout the article is almost an awe for these people and their art. Even though we're reassured (p. 32) that scientists would really reject evolution if proven false, we still know that only science itself could effect such an earth-shattering overthrow. Critics, opponents, and mortgage brokers may all be wrong, but this will not fail us.
Where was I? Oh–the next point. It's just a brief one. An early paragraph notes the Supreme Court rulings in 1982 and 1987, saying, "Offering creationism in public schools, even as a side dish to evolution, the high court held, violated the First Amendment's separation of church and state." For my thoughts on the whole convoluted reasoning behind this mindset, you can check out this post.
No comments yet.