Comment by Kell on February 22, 2009 at 5:13pm

I laughed pretty good on this one.

Comment by Dave on February 22, 2009 at 6:03pm

Good point, Morgan. I love this post.

You're right that evolution stabs right into the heart of the belief that we're divinely separate from all else in the world, but I'd also guess that it's got something to do with the perceived complexity of evolution theory itself. It's easy for people uneducated on the topic to say "We come from GOD, not a goddammed monkey!" or "Then explain what happened to all the intermediate species!". Granted, if they listened to the answers instead of putting their hands over there ears and saying "JESUS LA LA LA BLASPHEMY LA LA LA LA LA..." they'd understand species only adapt when their environment requires it, we're on a separate branch than monkeys and share a common ancestor, etc., etc.

Also, I think they don't understand that the word "theory" means "study of", not that the concept is unproven, so they think it's a leap of faith and therefore an easy target. They're convinced that if they can disprove evolution, there is no other possible explanation for the existence of all the species we have here on earth today. And of course once that gap is created they can reinsert their god to explain it. In their mind that not only deals a heavy blow to science, but is an automatic win for religion.

When I was still programmed, I remember trying not to think about the Noah's ark story with billions of species in walking distance of Noah's house, because it sounded ridiculous and created doubt. But as soon as somebody claimed to have found part of a giant boat in the top of a mountain I jumped on it and breathed a huge sigh of relief so I could continue believing and avoiding an eternity of hell fire for another day. Of course I didn't research it because deep down I knew it was still ridiculous, and the comfort of protection from disbelief was an easier option. People who want to believe don't need much proof. They just need someone to be on their side to say they have proof so they can claim the win by association and remain comfortably oblivious.

Most bible bangers also probably don't know enough about their bible or basic science to understand that the less debated categories are a threat, and the ones that do probably steer clear of the topics because it's too hard to argue against plate tectonics or chemistry.

Anyway, I've never given the question much thought before, so I really enjoyed the post.

Comment by John Duthie on April 23, 2010 at 2:46am

Hi, I am a Christian, and I love science, and respect scientists, and I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I find it fascinating as we reach out into space to explore, and the large hadron collide will hopefully provide us with more scientific knowledge.

I do NOT believe that the creation story as portrayed in Genesis is a literal story. The author was Moses, and I believe he was inspired to write Genesis. He combined the very limited scientific knowledge of the earth as of about 1000 BC, and added some very creative stories, and the result is the creation story in Genesis.

Comment by Joseph Chiaravalloti on April 25, 2011 at 10:49am

I disagree with your answer,  I believe that the fundamentalist right means to attack all of science and has only chosen evolution because it is perceived to be a weak link.  Of course Christians don't attack the theory of gravitation (so why aren't you floating away?), but believe the bible somehow defines PI as 3.0 and that the moon shines like the sun, only less.  When Kansas was writing the study of non-material causes into their science curriculum I corresponded with Kathy Martin, one of the proponents of the bill which would allow "intelligent design" to be part of the biology curriculum.  Her hostility to science can be seen in this quote from our correspondence.  Please note her commnet -- "This will help to remove preceived
material naturalism from the teaching of science,
which is an aethistic religion."  (Spelling errors belong to Ms. Martin.

 

  RE: NEW SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS

From: Kathy Martin a href="mailto:martinkathy@yahoo.com">martinkathy@yahoo.com>
To: xxxxxxxxx
Date: Nov 15 2005 - 6:59am

Comment by Joseph Chiaravalloti on April 25, 2011 at 10:50am

Sorry.  The system cut off the body of the email from Ms. Martin.  Trying again.

 

Dear Mr. C., You are still not correct in your
assumptions. There is NO endorsement of any study of
non-material causes in science classes, nor of ID.
The person was misquoted if that was what was
reported. The Kansas Science Education Standards
allow and encouage teachers and students to research
and critically analyze ALL SCIENTIFIC data that either
supports or refutes the controversies surrouding
evolution theory. This will help to remove preceived
material naturalism from the teaching of science,
which is an aethistic religion. A much closer human
disaster - World War II - was fought to combat the
idealogies of Nazism and Communism based on this
worldview. Even scientist in China and India, which
are not Christian countries, are seeing the flaws in
extrapolating macroevolution, from microevolution.
It's not introducing the supernatural, it's assuring
good science, and reliable teaching. Kathy Martin

Comment