News: Harnessing Darwin to Push an Ancient Intellectual Center to Evolve.
Ye Old One
Memo From Alexandria
Harnessing Darwin to Push an Ancient Intellectual Center to Evolve
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/world/middleeast/26egypt.html
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — It is not that Charles Darwin and the theory of
evolution are unknown here. But even among those who profess to know
something about the subject, the common understanding is that Darwin
said man came from monkeys.
Darwin, of course, did not say man came from monkeys. He said the two
share a common ancestor. But to discuss Darwin anywhere is not just to
explore the origin of man. It is inevitably to engage in a debate
between religion and science. That is why, 150 years after Darwin
published “On the Origin of Species,” the British Council, the
cultural arm of the British government, decided to hold an
international conference on Darwin in this conservative, Sunni Muslim
nation.
It was a first.
“A lot of people say his theories are wrong, or go against religion,”
said Martin Davidson, chief executive of the British Council. “His
ideas provoke, but if we are going to understand each other, we have
to discuss things that divide us.”
Darwin may be misunderstood here, but in many ways that is but one
symptom of a more fundamental problem with education in Egypt and
around the region. In a culture that prizes and nurtures conformity,
challenging conventions and beliefs is anathema, said writers,
political scientists, social workers, students and educators at and
beyond the conference.
Education here is based on rote memorization, with virtually no
emphasis on creative thinking. Few schools here even teach the theory
of evolution.
“Our culture, the whole Arab culture, unfortunately, does not
encourage free thinking,” said Madiha el-Safty, a sociology professor
at American University in Cairo. “You’re not encouraged to think
freely, you’re supposed to be molded into certain forms and
frameworks.”
In large part because of the emphasis on memorization over critical
thinking, many here say, the quality of the education is poor. While
countries in the region often spend as much or more than the world
average per pupil, the results are frequently far below average.
Egypt, for example, once considered the intellectual capital of the
Arab world, was recently ranked 124th of 133 countries in the quality
of its primary education by the World Economic Forum, based in
Switzerland. Other global assessments have provided equally dismal
results.
“If our education system is solid, but without emphasis on Darwin, it
would be O.K.,” said Belal Fadl, a script writer and social
commentator. “But our education system doesn’t really teach anything
well, not Arabic, not English, nothing.”
Indeed, many people, including some of the 150 scientists and scholars
in attendance at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina this month, were somewhat
surprised that the government even agreed to allow the conference. It
was unlike the leadership here to permit public discussion of ideas
that challenge religious thinking and the national curriculum, or
promote critical thinking, they said.
But the government’s acquiescence came in part because of the library
itself, a modern reincarnation of an ancient intellectual center that
was rebuilt and re-opened in 2001, a one-shot effort to rekindle the
kind of scholarship that centuries ago put Egypt at the forefront of
science and learning.
While defending Darwin, it was this broader theme, the idea of at
least listening to new ideas, that the library’s director, Ismail
Sergaldin, emphasized in his opening remarks. He pointed to the Koran,
which he said emphasized study and scholarship, as well as early
Muslim scientists, to make his point. He cited the words of the
pioneering 13th-century physician Ibn al-Nafis:
“When hearing something unusual, do not pre-emptively reject it, for
that would be folly. Indeed, horrible things may be true, and familiar
and praised things may prove to be lies. Truth is truth unto itself,
not because people say it is.”
It was a message that seemed to resonate with the many Egyptian
college students in the lecture hall.
“I am not against the idea of evolution completely,” said Amr Zeydah,
23, a zoology major at Alexandria University. “I accept the idea
partially.”
Despite his major, Mr. Zeydah has never studied Darwin, and before the
conference knew little about the theory of evolution. He accepted the
Islamic account of creation, that God formed Adam from dirt and
infused him with a soul.
But after taking in the discussion, he said he had worked out a way to
reconcile the two: that God created life, which then evolved to suit
its environment. “God created Adam at 15 meters tall,” he said,
quoting what he said was a Hadith, or saying, of the Prophet Muhammad.
“So evolution comes in because we are obviously not that height now.”
While some people may chuckle at the notion that man was once of
enormous height, the point, some of the speakers here said, was that
local sensitivities and beliefs must be understood, too, not dismissed
out of hand, if dialogue is to work.
“The problem is trying to impose your ideas on others,” said Samy
Zalat, professor of biodiversity and former chairman of the department
of zoology at Suez Canal University.
The British Council framed the conference to seek middle ground, more
than to promote confrontation. While challenging a religious society
to think seriously about evolution, it emphasized the possibility of
reconciling a belief in divine creation with Darwin’s theories of
evolution and natural selection. That was a position that many
students here said they were comfortable with.
“Darwin’s theory of species says nothing about the appearance of life
— or about the origins of the universe,” read panel No. 7, in an
exhibition on man’s evolution that was displayed during the
conference. “It is perfectly plausible to uphold a scientific account
of how natural laws allowed the universe and life to develop and to
believe that a deity created those laws.”
Judging from public comments made during the gathering, the effort to
reconcile faith and science left avowed atheists in the audience
frustrated and did little to convince the religious fundamentalists.
“How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
That came first and science came later,” said Francisco Diego, a
researcher from University College, London. “But there is an
explanation for the natural world, whether we like it or not.”
Even among those in the middle, the conference did not seem to change
minds. “I don’t believe in a common ancestor, but I do believe in
evolution,” said Asma Sharaf, 21, a business major.
What the conference did seem to do, though, was give Ms. Sharaf a
chance to experience the free and open exchange of ideas without fear
of reprisal from her teachers, parents or neighbors.
“We were taught that Darwin said that man was a descendant from
monkeys, that he was wrong, and that was it,” she said.
Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
>
>“Our culture, the whole Arab culture, unfortunately, does not
>encourage free thinking,” said Madiha el-Safty, a sociology professor
>at American University in Cairo. “You’re not encouraged to think
>freely, you’re supposed to be molded into certain forms and
>frameworks.”
the UN report on arab cultural development, and historian dan diner
have made the same points. islam in the arab world tends to retard
development because it's felt that islam is perfect so nothing more is
needed.
it's a view of what the western world would be like if creationist
mentalities were to win control
>
>
>While defending Darwin, it was this broader theme, the idea of at
>least listening to new ideas, that the library’s director, Ismail
>Sergaldin, emphasized in his opening remarks. He pointed to the Koran,
>which he said emphasized study and scholarship, as well as early
>Muslim scientists, to make his point
and, as religion became more prominent, learning became less so.
the more encompassing religion becomes, the more it stifles
development
All-Seeing-I
The more evolution replaces religion the more it stiffles spiritual
development.
Which happens to be more important.
All-Seeing-I
>
> “How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
Well. There ya go.
As usual, the atheist pukes have to make presupposition FIRST and then
state their case.
There is not a single reason to think that ancient texts related to
religion are simply a myth. Most of the documents found are written
from the perspective of recording man's knowledge. Furthermore, as we
can see from the archelogical dig sites the information was
painstakingly perserved by ancient an man in such a mannor as to
suggest they were saving accmulated knowledge.
If evolution is to ever gain a world wide audience, I suggest real
scientists seperate themselves from what can only be described as an
dishonest atheist agenda.
Species divergence is a notion made on inferences of data that has the
propensity to be as flawed as man is. So replacing religion with
evolution is simply tossing the baby out to get rid of the bath water.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 6:10 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> “How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
>
>Well. There ya go.
>
>As usual, the atheist pukes have to make presupposition FIRST and then
>state their case.
?? gee. imagine. following standard writing procedures. state your
premise. defend it.
yeah that's GOTTA piss off a creationist who thinks deference to
authority is human destiny
>
>There is not a single reason to think that ancient texts related to
>religion are simply a myth.
sure there are. because they are. exodus? myth. moses? myth. abraham.
myth
no proof of any of them at all. none
Most of the documents found are written
>from the perspective of recording man's knowledge. Furthermore, as we
>can see from the archelogical dig sites the information was
>painstakingly perserved by ancient an man in such a mannor as to
>suggest they were saving accmulated knowledge.
well...no. again, exodus is a myth. if you have proof to the contrary
present it.
moses is a myth.
>
>If evolution is to ever gain a world wide audience, I suggest real
>scientists seperate themselves from what can only be described as an
>dishonest atheist agenda.
evolution has nothing to do with atheism unless you believe you alone
know who god is.
somehow i don't think alot of people believe you
>
>Species divergence is a notion made on inferences of data that has the
>propensity to be as flawed as man is. So replacing religion with
>evolution is simply tossing the baby out to get rid of the bath water.
speciation is observed. god is not.
big difference
and no one is 'replacing religion with evolution'
we're simply replacing YOUR religion with the truth.
so, you just joined a club: the club whose members believe in a dead
god.
bpuharic
evolution replaces YOUR religion with the truth. you made your god a
test tube god, subject to scientific disproof.
and you got your ass kicked.
>
>Which happens to be more important.
truth. so, your religion dies a double death.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 27, 6:10 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> �How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
>
> Well. There ya go.
>
> As usual, the atheist pukes have to make presupposition FIRST and then
> state their case.
>
> There is not a single reason to think that ancient texts related to
> religion are simply a myth.
There's no reason to think they were not.
>Most of the documents found are written
> from the perspective of recording man's knowledge.
How can you tell the difference between a "document" written as a myth, and
one written to "record man's knowledge"? More to the point, how do you
know the ancients made a difference?
> Furthermore, as we
> can see from the archelogical dig sites the information was
> painstakingly perserved by ancient an man in such a mannor as to
> suggest they were saving accmulated knowledge.
Again, how would you know the difference, especially as the ancient writers
didn't make any distinction.
>
> If evolution is to ever gain a world wide audience, I suggest real
> scientists seperate themselves from what can only be described as an
> dishonest atheist agenda.
There is no such "atheist agenda", and evolution has a world wide audience.
>
> Species divergence is a notion made on inferences of data that has the
> propensity to be as flawed as man is. So replacing religion with
> evolution is simply tossing the baby out to get rid of the bath water.
Replacing religion with evolution is a non issue. No one is attempting to
do so. All science is inference from data, and evolution is no different
in that respect.
DJT
Ye Old One
Good.
>
>Which happens to be more important.
Evolution of course.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Eric Root
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 6:10 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> >> “How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
>
> > Well. There ya go.
>
> > As usual, the atheist pukes have to make presupposition FIRST and then
> > state their case.
>
> > There is not a single reason to think that ancient texts related to
> > religion are simply a myth.
>
> There's no reason to think they were not.
>
> >Most of the documents found are written
> > from the perspective of recording man's knowledge.
>
> How can you tell the difference between a "document" written as a myth, and
> one written to "record man's knowledge"? More to the point, how do you
They didn't: myths were _how_ they passed on knowlege, with all the
pluses and minuses that entails.
>
> > Furthermore, as we
> > can see from the archelogical dig sites the information was
> > painstakingly perserved by ancient an man in such a mannor as to
> > suggest they were saving accmulated knowledge.
>
> Again, how would you know the difference, especially as the ancient writers
> didn't make any distinction.
>
Well, in real life, instead of in Adman-cuckoo land, you listen to
what scientists have to say about it.
>
>
> > If evolution is to ever gain a world wide audience, I suggest real
> > scientists seperate themselves from what can only be described as an
> > dishonest atheist agenda.
>
> There is no such "atheist agenda", and evolution has a world wide audience.
Plus, babbling about "atheist agendas" puts you in the same screwball
boat as Ray and Pags.
>
>
>
> > Species divergence is a notion made on inferences of data that has the
> > propensity to be as flawed as man is. So replacing religion with
> > evolution is simply tossing the baby out to get rid of the bath water.
>
Evolution is no more a replacement of religion than gravity or motion
are.
> Replacing religion with evolution is a non issue. No one is attempting to
> do so. All science is inference from data, and evolution is no different
> in that respect.
>
> DJT
Eric Root
All-Seeing-I
yOU NO LONGER GIVE SOUND ARGUMENTS dANA.
yOU SIMPLY SAY "BLACK" WHEN A CREATIONIST SAYS "WHITE"
ooops, sorry for the caps.
Boikat
Actually, he does. You don't. That is why your typical posts consist
of logical fallacies or simple demonstrations of your inability to
comprehend written science articles and come to the wrong conclusions
and think you've found some sort of "Gotcha!", that refutes the ToE,
not to mention your brainless pontifications and arrogant and ignorant
proclaimation on the validity of ancient texts.
>
> yOU SIMPLY SAY "BLACK" WHEN A CREATIONIST SAYS "WHITE"
As opposed to your matras of "you lack the ability to perceive the
supernatural", or "since human perceptions are limited, science is
limited", or other equally meaningless nihilistic idiocies, when your
claims are refuted, but are too arrogant to admit it?
>
> ooops, sorry for the caps.
Oops! You lied again.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 27, 6:10 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > “How did religion start? With myths and traditions and superstitions.
>
> Well. There ya go.
>
> As usual, the atheist pukes have to make presupposition FIRST and then
> state their case.
>
> There is not a single reason to think that ancient texts related to
> religion are simply a myth.
So, to repeat a question you ignore because it demonstrates the utter
inanity of your position:
Which of the two different creation accounts in the Bible is true, and
which is a lie?
You insist on the dichotomy that something is either true or a lie, so
why not apply it to the Bible?
I've posted a link to 48 different creation stories, some of which are
recorded in "ancient texts". By *your* criterion, at least 47 of them
are lies.
How do you determine which, if any, is the truth?
> Most of the documents found are written
> from the perspective of recording man's knowledge. Furthermore, as we
> can see from the archelogical dig sites the information was
> painstakingly perserved by ancient an man in such a mannor as to
> suggest they were saving accmulated knowledge.
>
> If evolution is to ever gain a world wide audience, I suggest real
> scientists seperate themselves from what can only be described as an
> dishonest atheist agenda.
>
> Species divergence is a notion made on inferences of data that has the
> propensity to be as flawed as man is. So replacing religion with
> evolution is simply tossing the baby out to get rid of the bath water.
Get an education.
RF
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Dana tells the truth while creationists like you lie all the time.
>
>ooops, sorry for the caps.
Then why not correct them you inconsiderate moron?
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.