Paul J Gans wrote:
> John Wilkins <j
...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>Mike Thom wrote:
>>>TomS wrote:
>>>>"On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:00:49 +1000, in article
>>>><djaopc$30u...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>>>>>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=68126
>>>>>Scientists condemn 'intelligent design'
>>>>>Friday Oct 21 13:51 AEST
>>>>>Australia's scientific community Friday called for an alternative evolutionary
>>>>>theory known as "intelligent design" to be barred from classrooms, comparing
>>>>>it to spoon-bending and alien abductions.
>>>>>More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers signed an open letter urging
>>>>>Australia's conservative government not to allow intelligent design onto
>>>>>school curricula.
>>>>[...snip...]
>>>> 70,000 in Australia?
>>>> That's impressive.
>>>Well I don't mean to niggle, but actually there were 4 signatories who
>>>represent institutions with more than 70,000 scientists/teachers
>>>between them.
>>True.
>>>Also, Australia's government may be conservative but the implication
>>>isn't quite the same as in the US - I can't see it becoming mainstream
>>>government policy...
>>I can. There is an increasingly strong thread of sectarianism in the current
>>government, who make their individual religious views a point of political
>>play. The last time that happened in Australia was when Archbishop Mannix, a
>>very doctrinaire Catholic, dictated labor politics for a generation here, back
>>in the pre-War era.
>>The PM, several ministers, and worryingly, some of the opposition party on the
>>left (we have *real* leftists here) have made play on religion. Recently, a
>>Muslim was unable to get preselected for the conservatives.
>>The Federal education minister has come out publicly in favor of ID as this
>>article suggests, but has backed down to say he wants it taught only in
>>religious classes (we hae Religious Education in public schools - it's
>>optional and nonsectarian, so far).
> Hmph <clears throat> One more time: we are losing
> this battle big time. And not just in Oz or the Us
> either.
> As Sherlock Holmes observed to Watson on the eve of
> the outbreak of World War I, (paraphrased from memory)
> There's a cold wind coming from the East, Watson,
> and many of us will shrivel and die before it runs
> its course.
> Substitute creationists for "East" and you have it
> exactly.
> - -- Paul J. Gans
The problem isn't creationism. It isn't Intelligent Design. It's every and all
antimodernism that's ever been around from the antivaccination crowd to flat
earthers to antigenetics to antiecology to antinuclear power to these two
idiocies. It's the fact that most of the world can't cope with defeasible
knowledge and change from comfortable certainties. Humans do not, as Aristotle
wrongly thought they did, desire to know. Humans desire to be convinced they
are right.
We managed for a few generations to convince those who made policy that
knowledge gained honestly through toil, but which was tentative and
reviseable, was to be preferred to faith and dogma as a way of knowing the
world. We made great strides and were too convinced that the world was
following us who thought science a good thing. But while the world likes the
output of science, they don't like knowledge most of the time. They would be
very happy for science to stop right where it is at any time. So far, as no
further, would be fine, if the mullahs, priests and prophets had their way.
Since about 1970 the popular mood has shifted away from science in favour of
technodazzle, from learning in favour of infotainment. Critics of science
moved from legitimate concern to ideological objection (or else why is it that
nuclear power is not regarded as a legitimate alternative to hydro-, coal- and
the weak solar-power otptions?).
We are living in the post-scientific era. What we do here is to maintain an
interest in real science (it happens that I care most about evolution and
biology, but the same thing can be said in a host of other domains). We do
this because learning is a Good on its own, but also because as ignorance and
opinion overtake knowledge, some learning will be held in common to support
the next generation when it needs it.
My fear is that we will see society in the west fall to pieces as the
knowledge it needs is overtaken by *real* junk science for political and
social reasons. My hope is that it will persist in societies that still see it
as the way to improve their lot, in China, India, Russia, the rest of Asia.
They may one day reseed the west after it has passed through the next dark
ages. Historians will date it, I think, around 1970. I hope they set the end
of it no later than 2100.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
|
