From the Gospel According to the First Church of Creationism (Second Great Schism, Non-Egnorant, Reformed)
Chap 3
I And thus did the Multitude cry unto the Scientists: "Where are the transitional fossils?"
II And the scientists answered unto them:
"Behold, we have uneartherd aerchaeopteryx. And yea, verily, it is dressed in scales, like unto a lizard is. And yet is hath the wings of a bird of the air." And the Multitude said unto them each and all: "Hang on, those wings were glued on."
III Quoth the Scientists: "What? Of course not ... look, it's all part of the same stone. Besides, we've found several of these things ..."
IV And in answer the Multitude arose and said: "Well, okay, it's not a fake--but it's not a dinosaur, neither. This is not like unto a Lizard, but is Wholly Bird, as the Creator (or Creators) intended.
V And the Scientists, and the Paleontologists didst return to their Laboratories, and there was much mumbling and shuffling of paper.
VI In time cameth again and again the Scientists, and always they said unto the Multitude: "Look, we really think we've got something here. We think you ought to look at it. It's very exciting."
VII And they brought forth several fossils. And the Multitude hardened their hearts against them until the composition thereof was as organic matter which hath settled into a peat bog for millions of years and become as stone. And stopped they their ears and cried they: "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I canst not hear thee, for my Creator hath caused mine fingers to stop Mine ears that I may not hear!"
VIII But then came Eupodophis descouensi. And the Scientists did consult one unto another. And they came before the Multitude and said:
IX "Right--you see that? That there, right? Y'know what that is, Sunshine? That's a bloody Leg! It was useless to the animal in life, so presumably it wasn't bloody well designed--not bloody intelligently at any rate. Now is any of this getting through? At all?"
X And lo, the scales fell from the eyes of the Multitude, and their fingers left their ears with an audible "pop", and they became Enlightened, saying:
XI "Er, um. Well, I guess we were a bit foolish about that whole business, weren't we? I feelest a right muggins, me. Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to force reality to fit the literalist interpretation of English retranslations of a book, in Latin, of Aramaic and Greek philosophical writings that are at best allegorical."
XII And they went out and found something more constructive to spend their time on. And there was much Rejoicing, and people were a little bit friendlier with one another.
posted by Metro @ 4:40 pm
7 Comments:
What a delightful little work of fiction.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if they could, in fact, just relax long enough to listen to the science?
The violence of the stupidity about these "roots" issues is actually a little frightening.
I mean, we're not talking about Christmas displays in the public square. We're talking about something as basic as whether mythology should be taught as science.
I mean, here's the equivalent argument in physics:
Physicist: "Gravity holds us to Earth."
Creationist/IDer/What-have-you:
"No--God--Uh, I mean the Creator, presses gently down on the tops of our heads to keep us in place."
Physicist: "Bwaaahahahahaha!"
Entire scientific community: "Bwaaaahahahahahaha!"
Rest of the world: "Bwaaaahahahahaha!"
~Debate ends.
mbah [Greek = Baaa]
Do "Creatinists" or "IDers" actually suggest that "No--God--Uh, I mean the Creator, presses gently down on the tops of our heads to keep us in place"
If they do so suggest, would this be inconsistent with Gravity, keeping us from floating off into Outer Space
An IDer says the Table is Brown - the pScientist says that it emits light waves at a measured frequency (seen as Brown by IDers & pScientists alike) - these are 2 different but mutually consistent ways of looking at the colouration of furniture
Peut-estre - are you being pScientifically pSimplistic
Je n'ai pas de problem avec l'Evolution Special, because we 'ave observed it
eg In less Civilized Times in Inglaterra, a species of Butterfly could have Light or Dark Wings, but the Dark-Winged version became predominant in Londinium
- soot/smog was then blackening the buildings/surroundings
- it seems that Lighter Butterflies disappeared, presumably eaten by Evolutionary Enthusiasts [err ... Birds, in the North-Amerikan dialekt] eager to eat Butterfiles and able to spot the White ones against a Black Background
However, there is a pScientific issue over General Evolution
?? Can you name ONE single case where we have actually observed General Evolution happening before our very eyes
Admittedly, to my unPscientific eyes, AerchieOpterix does seem to have some features belonging to reptiles and other features belonging to birds
This could be consistent with its being descended from Lizards on the way to its descendants ascending to Birds
... but could it be the other way round ... could Aerchie be descended from Birds on its way to becoming a Reptile
... or could it be that there may be no connection between Aerchie and either (1) Reptiles or (2) Birds
We may have several dots .... (a) a 5-toed horse, (b) a one-toed horse & (c) a 3-toed horse and similarly Elephants ....
... but it's how to connect the dots (if at all) that is the concundrum
.... did (a) lead to (c) and then on to (b)
How confident can we be about the dating of all these fossils ?
I find it all very puzzling
Perhaps the Questionable Authority (who seems to kNow about these things) might be able to help us
AND I vorry about appeals to the views of "the ENTIRE pScientific Community"
The ENTIRE pScientific Community used to believe that the Sun went rould the Earth ... or at least those the Catholic Church was not incinerating
"Scientists" tell us that Mankind is causing Global Warming
... but how many such "Scientists" are being paid Grants and Salaries to prove Mankind's Global Warming effects
Je reste le vestre servant obedient etc
L'Aigle Gris
Brilliant brilliant - I want to steal -> pop by my place if you object and I'll delete it.
@Meineer EAglE
I am not being scientifically simplistic. There are people who propose that the Earth is six thousand years old, that the universe was built by someone who cannot be proven to exist (except by pointing at the universe and saying "Well how'd that get there, then?"), and that fossils were actually implanted by a devil to fool us.
I have no problem at all with these people. I would have no problem with a tribe of primitive people on some Pacific island worshipping an unknown US serviceman and building airports in his honour.
However, if the tribespeople approached me, and said that they wanted children taught in public school science classes that worshipping John Frum brought outboard motors, I would consider that ludicrous.
My father, a Catholic, has no big problem with evolution. He seems to feel that God lined everything up and gave it a shove in the right direction. He taught me that. Catholic school, for the years I attended, largely avoided the issue.
However, the US courts are continually wasting time having to listen to creationists (often the particularly annoying "young-Earth" variety) explain why their mythos must be taught as science.
Lack of scientifically obtained, reliable evidence will not sway them. Failure to separate dogma from the scientific method is no impediment. They will teach their particular stripe of creationism willy-nilly to people who do not share their faith(s), and do so outside the special enclaves of schools like Bob Jones University--whose science textbooks declare on the first page:
"Biology for Christian Schools is a textbook for Bible-believing high-school students. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them. "
Although they want to force this "science text" on those who do not share their faith, and force institutions of higher learning to accept such teaching as a science credential for admission.
Can you imagine why anyone should allow these people to dictate scientific curriculum in real schools?
@Philipa:
Steal away, steal away. I'm always flattered when my rantings make it onto other pages.
A further thought on Anthropocentric Global Warming:
There is a perception that there's some digression in the scientific community on the twin issues of a) whether it's happening at all, and b) whether we caused it. And there is.
There are climate experts, and then there's everybody else.
On one side we have 2500 scientific experts contributing to the IPCC; climatologists and environmental scientists, many of them. The opposition seems to be composed of a few physicists, chemists, and economists. Oh, and Michael Crighton.
The IPCC contributors receive no compensation for their work as contributors, and indeed criticism has been leveled that IPCC workers have to take time off from their paid research projects.
The opposition gets $10,000 a paper from Exxon-Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and half-a-dozen like-minded organizations.
Who ya gonna believe?
Bjorn Lomborg--the biggest "scientific" name in climate-change inactivism, often cited (wrongly) as a global warming denialist--has a PhD in ...
Political science?
Not to deny the accomplishment of such a doctorate, nor his expertise in social matters. But should I be listening to him on climate change strategies over David Suzuki? Dr. Suzuki, at least, has a zoology doctorate, and has witnessed firsthand the impact of global warming in the Canadian north.
Post a Comment
<< Home