Sunday, December 02, 2007

If Carrie Nation were an Evolutionist...

My, my. How terribly intolerant we are becoming. And by "we", of course, I mean "them".

In yesterday's Louisville Courier-Journal James Wilmott, a former science teacher in Goshen, KY who now lives in England, wags his finger at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and anyone who might choose to go there. It is a travesty, Wilmott suggests, that there are people out there who have the temerity to disagree with him on the issue of human origins, and something's got to be done about it.

Wilmott is one of those terribly concerned public scolds who comes along every now and then to lecture the rest of us on our wayward thoughts and actions--the evolutionists' version of Carrie Nation. If anyone sees a guy in Petersburg, KY swinging an axe trying to break up the dinosaur displays, we'll know who it is.

One of the thing's Wilmott wants is a law forcing home school families to teach the evolutionary theory to their children.

So, let's see if we've got all this straight: we're supposed to be scared of Ken Hamm, who runs a museum that people can choose to go to if they want, but completely unconcerned about someone who wants to pass laws mandating what parents have to teach to their own children in their own homes?

I don't even agree with Ken Hamm, but I've got enough sense to know which one to fear--and it isn't the guy with the robotic dinosaurs.

7 comments:

motheral said...

If anyone sees a guy in Petersburg, KY swinging an axe trying to break up the dinosaur displays, we'll know who it is.

Has ANYONE been seen swinging an axe at dinosaur displays? Has Wilmott ehibited any destructive behavior before? Or you do you automatically equate verbal criticism with physical destruction?

One of the thing's Wilmott wants is a law forcing home school families to teach the evolutionary theory to their children.

There's nothing new about societies requiring children to be taught what they need to know in order to function in society. And requiring the teaching of at least some valid science is perfectly reasonable, especially in a society where so many jobs depend on scientific and technological advancement.

Besides, refusing to teach valid science is a form of neglect, and teaching them lies disguised as science is a form of abuse -- both of which are already forbidden by law. So what's the big deal?

nicholasville conservative said...

On what subject do you disagree with Ken Hamm?

Martin Cothran said...

Motheral,

Has ANYONE been seen swinging an axe at dinosaur displays? Has Wilmott ehibited any destructive behavior before? Or you do you automatically equate verbal criticism with physical destruction?

It's a joke. Humor? Amusement? Comprendes?

You evolutionists are so grim. It is one of the reasons I think that you all are losing out to the creationists in the contest of which will survive as a species.

Humor is a survivability trait. Trust me.

motheral said...

Are you saying that if we laugh at your jokes, the Christian and Muslim creationists will stop threatening us with physical violence? (That is, after all, the greatest threat to evolutionist survival at this time.)

If "Humor is a survivability trait," then we'll be the ones to survive, because our jokes are funnier (or, at the very least, more easily recognizable as jokes), and you religious zealots are so unable to laugh at yourselves.

nicholasville conservative said...

Martin, please answer my previous question. You dropped a line into your original text that you disagree with Ken Hamm. Please clarify what you meant by that.

Martin Cothran said...

Nicholasville Conservative,

Sorry. "Don't agree" is perhaps too strong an expression. I just meant that I am not convinced of the young earth creationist view, that's all. As I have said before, I'm a bit of a skeptic on what one can know happened a long time ago. I'm obviously skeptical of evolution, but I don't know that there is a whole heck of lot evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs either.

I don't think Christians are bound by a view that originated in the 17th century (in this case with Bishop Ussher), which applied to the Bible enlightenment assumptions about truth that the writers of the Scriptures would have been completely unfamiliar with.

For that matter, I have not even taken a position on strong case Intelligent Design. I don't know if the particular proposals Dembski wants to accomplish will pan out or not. I'd just like to see them pursued without harassment from the reigning dogmatists of Darwinism.

The only thing I am confident of is a weak-case Intelligent Design, which says that there are criteria we employ constantly to determine whether something is the product of design, and that it is legitimate to apply those criteria to the things of this world. I think the world bespeaks design. That is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. But it is no weaker than that.

The thing I am arguing against on this blog is the dogmatic imposition of any view on people who choose not to believe it. Right now this is coming from the Darwinists. They really want to force their beliefs on other people. I think this intolerance for alternative viewpoints is positively dangerous and poses a threat to the pursuit of truth.

My motto on issues like this comes from Pascal: We know to little to be dogmatists and too much to be skeptics.

nicholasville conservative said...

I thought it was young earth creationism, but just wanted to be sure. I don't necessary disagree with the note of caution. The Gap Theory I find a bit clumsy hermeneutically, but beyond that I don't get too dogmatic in denouncing those who may hold to a framework hypothesis or similar.

As for ID, it reminds me of what was classically called the teleological argument. But I need to study ID quite a bit more before I can speak "intelligently" about it. I do know something about math (my academic background), and believe the probabilistic chances of evolution are nil. Thanks for the substantive reply.