You Asked For It, Part 1
Jan. 26th, 2005 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01This is for the ranty-pants meme. As a reminder, people requested that I rant about certain topics. I've taken a few liberties, and some of these are going to seem more like me expressing my opinion than an actual rant. :-)
Disclaimer: These were fired off quickly, so I didn't put a heck of a lot of thought into them. 'Cause if it was a thought-provoking, well-researched essay, it wouldn't be a rant, now would it? ;-) If you click a link and read something that pisses you off, let's have an intelligent, civil discussion about it, okay? This is supposed to be fun, not cause anyone stress. Have a nice day.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
skuf requested a rant on political correctness. Political correctness is a term invented by people who find the idea of showing respect to all human beings a tad much trouble to deal with. The thing is, labels are important: human beings categorize as a way of dealing with the complexity of the world around them. We categorize everything, but we also categorize people. Most of the historic labels given to minority groups weren't chosen by them; they were assigned by the dominant (usually white European) group. And those labels have meanings attached to them that remind us all that certain people were historically considered less equal than others. If you want to decide what label people should use for you, great! More power to you. Just let me know what it is, and I will abide by your wishes. I'm more than happy to assist you in your efforts to redefine who you are, because I'm a nice person.
And that, I think, is where it all started. Of course, some people don't like being told "It's not Native American, it's American Indian", and get all offended. Yeah, it's a bit of a hassle to keep track of things like that, but you know what? It's a way of showing respect to people who haven't historically had it. They aren't asking for huge handouts; they're asking for the right to choose what they're called. Get the fuck over it!
Of course, the label "political correctness" is now instantly attached to anything or anyone who goes out of their way to show respect for an under-respresented group. So you see, it's yet another attempt by these same people to put a derogatory label on an otherwise positive force for change.
Damn, I was trying really hard to work the word "hegemony" in there, but couldn't do it! ;-)
maracela and nmalfoy requested rants about how so many stupid movies get made. Stupid movies are released by major studios all the time, while solid, intelligent, socially relevant films by independent filmmakers get passed over again and again, if they are made at all. I would say that I'm stunned at the stupidity of the people who run the studios, but I'm not. Because they're not stupid. Their job is to make as much money for the studio as possible. And the best way to do that is to make the movies they think the American public wants. They do fairly extensive surveying to find out what the public wants, and they are generally right.
So what really pisses me off is that the average American moviegoer is a complete idiot who really wants to see Will Smith blow up aliens and spout witty lines, all to a hip-hop soundtrack. It's all their fault, because they willingly fork over $8-10 to see the same fucking movie over and over again, thereby validating the studio executives' belief that that was a good movie to make.
And yeah, every now and then a film that all the studios passed on will be a major blockbuster, so they regroup and squeeze out a few clones of it, but still don't trust that the American moviegoing public wants to see intelligent films. And you know what? They're right.
tea_and_toast requested a rant on creationism in the school science curriculum. Heh. See, I have buttons, and this is a damn big one.
Let me start by stating that I think we do a piss-poor job of teaching science and mathematics in this country. (I'm a bit of an expert on this, actually, which I'm sure is whytea_and_toast thought it would be entertaining to give me this topic.) Kids get out of school believing that math is a set of disconnected procedures they had to memorize, most of which are fairly useless, and that science is a set of disconnected theories and facts they had to memorize for the test, most of which are fairly useless.
Example: What are trees made of? That is, how do these massive organisms get the materials they need to grow so large? Think about that before you read on. A famous study was done a few years ago that asked lots of basic science questions to Harvard graduates, and they failed to answer them correctly in shocking numbers, thereby making the multitudes of us who didn't go to Harvard feel quite smug indeed. In response to this particular question, most responded that trees get their nutrients from water and from the soil, so they're made up of those things. Now, as any middle school student ought to know, this is WRONG. Bonus points to people who can give the correct answer to that question in a comment below.
The point here is that science is more than a set of theories and facts! It's a process for studying and learning about the world. We're constantly learning more, so our understanding of the way the world works changes every day. So yes, science is not static; it changes. Theories change. It's a human enterprise, and it's affected by people, politics, religion, culture, and so on. If you don't believe me, google "Galileo" and learn what happened to him.
Now, the difference between a theory and a fact is addressed in the elementary school curriculum, so it's a constant surprise to me that people confuse the two. Here's a refresher: facts are things that are true. Perhaps they were theories in the past, but there is overwhelming evidence for them, and they're just true. Fact: ice has lessmass density (shit, stupid mistake!) than water (which explains why it floats). Theories, on the other hand, are a way of understanding something. They're a model of sorts, and there is a great deal of evidence to support them, but they're a tool for understanding. So if they are good predictors of what should happen in various situations, fantastic. If they're a little off, we correct for that. If we find a better theory, we'll use it. We constantly poke and prod theories to see if we can make them even better. Example: light behaves like a particle and like a wave. (We can't seem to find one model, but hey, it works out most of the time.)
And here's the thing: Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. Period. Species evolve, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but they do evolve. The fossil record is enormous and its existence is indisputable. Yes, Virginia, we have a common ancestor with apes. We evolved, clawed our way to the top of the food chain, and proceeded to use our evolutionary prowess to destroy our planet.
BUT, here's the thing: how did this evolution occur? That is the part that is theoretical. We have a lot of evidence, but it's difficult to say for sure. There are four theories of how evolution happens, commonly called the "four forces of evolution": gene flow, mutation, gentic drift, and natural selection. Most scientists believe evolution happens through a combination of those, and circumstances dictate which forces in particular pushed a species to evolve in a particular direction. We can't go back in time to measure atmospheric conditions or population sizes, so we do the best we can with the evidence we have. So the big question in not whether species evolve, but how they evolve.
Creationism was the way people thought the world came about thousands of years ago. They also thought the earth was flat then, that the sun revolved around us, and that women and people of certain skin colors were inferior. Why do so many people cling to this ancient myth about how the world was created, when they've rejected the other myths? I think it's because they just don't understand the nature of science. (And recall that I blame schools for this, not the individuals.) The thing is, evolution does not preclude the existence of God. I'm an atheist, so I won't try to explain how that would work, but I know plenty of religious people who understand this. Maybe a few of them would like to comment here?
So back to the main subject of what should be taught in schools: we're teaching kids science in science classes, not religion. The fact is that there aren't religious components in this branch of science. If you insert them, it's misrepresenting (and completely twisting) the discipline. We don't do this (intentionally) in any other subject. Why add in things that simply aren't there? If you want to teach the creation myth, fine -- just do it in a lit class, or someplace else where myths are discussed and analyzed.
And "creation science"? Oxymoron from hell. I think I'll stop now...
Part two will come later today. This was fun, actually!
Disclaimer: These were fired off quickly, so I didn't put a heck of a lot of thought into them. 'Cause if it was a thought-provoking, well-researched essay, it wouldn't be a rant, now would it? ;-) If you click a link and read something that pisses you off, let's have an intelligent, civil discussion about it, okay? This is supposed to be fun, not cause anyone stress. Have a nice day.
skuf requested a rant on political correctness. Political correctness is a term invented by people who find the idea of showing respect to all human beings a tad much trouble to deal with. The thing is, labels are important: human beings categorize as a way of dealing with the complexity of the world around them. We categorize everything, but we also categorize people. Most of the historic labels given to minority groups weren't chosen by them; they were assigned by the dominant (usually white European) group. And those labels have meanings attached to them that remind us all that certain people were historically considered less equal than others. If you want to decide what label people should use for you, great! More power to you. Just let me know what it is, and I will abide by your wishes. I'm more than happy to assist you in your efforts to redefine who you are, because I'm a nice person.And that, I think, is where it all started. Of course, some people don't like being told "It's not Native American, it's American Indian", and get all offended. Yeah, it's a bit of a hassle to keep track of things like that, but you know what? It's a way of showing respect to people who haven't historically had it. They aren't asking for huge handouts; they're asking for the right to choose what they're called. Get the fuck over it!
Of course, the label "political correctness" is now instantly attached to anything or anyone who goes out of their way to show respect for an under-respresented group. So you see, it's yet another attempt by these same people to put a derogatory label on an otherwise positive force for change.
Damn, I was trying really hard to work the word "hegemony" in there, but couldn't do it! ;-)
maracela and nmalfoy requested rants about how so many stupid movies get made. Stupid movies are released by major studios all the time, while solid, intelligent, socially relevant films by independent filmmakers get passed over again and again, if they are made at all. I would say that I'm stunned at the stupidity of the people who run the studios, but I'm not. Because they're not stupid. Their job is to make as much money for the studio as possible. And the best way to do that is to make the movies they think the American public wants. They do fairly extensive surveying to find out what the public wants, and they are generally right.So what really pisses me off is that the average American moviegoer is a complete idiot who really wants to see Will Smith blow up aliens and spout witty lines, all to a hip-hop soundtrack. It's all their fault, because they willingly fork over $8-10 to see the same fucking movie over and over again, thereby validating the studio executives' belief that that was a good movie to make.
And yeah, every now and then a film that all the studios passed on will be a major blockbuster, so they regroup and squeeze out a few clones of it, but still don't trust that the American moviegoing public wants to see intelligent films. And you know what? They're right.
tea_and_toast requested a rant on creationism in the school science curriculum. Heh. See, I have buttons, and this is a damn big one. Let me start by stating that I think we do a piss-poor job of teaching science and mathematics in this country. (I'm a bit of an expert on this, actually, which I'm sure is why
tea_and_toast thought it would be entertaining to give me this topic.) Kids get out of school believing that math is a set of disconnected procedures they had to memorize, most of which are fairly useless, and that science is a set of disconnected theories and facts they had to memorize for the test, most of which are fairly useless. Example: What are trees made of? That is, how do these massive organisms get the materials they need to grow so large? Think about that before you read on. A famous study was done a few years ago that asked lots of basic science questions to Harvard graduates, and they failed to answer them correctly in shocking numbers, thereby making the multitudes of us who didn't go to Harvard feel quite smug indeed. In response to this particular question, most responded that trees get their nutrients from water and from the soil, so they're made up of those things. Now, as any middle school student ought to know, this is WRONG. Bonus points to people who can give the correct answer to that question in a comment below.
The point here is that science is more than a set of theories and facts! It's a process for studying and learning about the world. We're constantly learning more, so our understanding of the way the world works changes every day. So yes, science is not static; it changes. Theories change. It's a human enterprise, and it's affected by people, politics, religion, culture, and so on. If you don't believe me, google "Galileo" and learn what happened to him.
Now, the difference between a theory and a fact is addressed in the elementary school curriculum, so it's a constant surprise to me that people confuse the two. Here's a refresher: facts are things that are true. Perhaps they were theories in the past, but there is overwhelming evidence for them, and they're just true. Fact: ice has less
And here's the thing: Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. Period. Species evolve, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but they do evolve. The fossil record is enormous and its existence is indisputable. Yes, Virginia, we have a common ancestor with apes. We evolved, clawed our way to the top of the food chain, and proceeded to use our evolutionary prowess to destroy our planet.
BUT, here's the thing: how did this evolution occur? That is the part that is theoretical. We have a lot of evidence, but it's difficult to say for sure. There are four theories of how evolution happens, commonly called the "four forces of evolution": gene flow, mutation, gentic drift, and natural selection. Most scientists believe evolution happens through a combination of those, and circumstances dictate which forces in particular pushed a species to evolve in a particular direction. We can't go back in time to measure atmospheric conditions or population sizes, so we do the best we can with the evidence we have. So the big question in not whether species evolve, but how they evolve.
Creationism was the way people thought the world came about thousands of years ago. They also thought the earth was flat then, that the sun revolved around us, and that women and people of certain skin colors were inferior. Why do so many people cling to this ancient myth about how the world was created, when they've rejected the other myths? I think it's because they just don't understand the nature of science. (And recall that I blame schools for this, not the individuals.) The thing is, evolution does not preclude the existence of God. I'm an atheist, so I won't try to explain how that would work, but I know plenty of religious people who understand this. Maybe a few of them would like to comment here?
So back to the main subject of what should be taught in schools: we're teaching kids science in science classes, not religion. The fact is that there aren't religious components in this branch of science. If you insert them, it's misrepresenting (and completely twisting) the discipline. We don't do this (intentionally) in any other subject. Why add in things that simply aren't there? If you want to teach the creation myth, fine -- just do it in a lit class, or someplace else where myths are discussed and analyzed.
And "creation science"? Oxymoron from hell. I think I'll stop now...
Part two will come later today. This was fun, actually!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 04:45 pm (UTC)Not for everyone. :) For me, "political correctness" doesn't even cover the same material you picked out above. When I slap the PC label on something, I'm remarking on the fact that it has become increasingly popular to dismiss everything someone says because they didn't say it in precisely the way someone else wanted them to say it, or the fact that it has become so easy to offend people that I honestly think some people stay up late at night asking themselves "How will I get offended tomorrow?"
Taking a bit of care to express ourselves thoughtfully does aid communication. But there's a tipping point past which trying not to offend people leads to more communications snarls and more chances to be offended. And it can lead to people presupposing prejudice where none exists, which is frustating as hell! It drives me batty when I hear that the only people who use "Oriental" to refer to "people of Asian descent/Asian people" are racist bigots who think all Chinese people work in laundries and all Japanese people have hentai fetishes. My entire family used the word Oriental until it became trendy to use "Asian-American". I am half-Japanese! I can guarantee you that the Japanese half of my family does not think all Japanese people have hentai fetishes. I cannot guarantee you they think kindly of Koreans, but we're totally clear about the hentai thing.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:00 pm (UTC)Word. *is also half-Japanese*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:01 pm (UTC)The funny thing is that I don't really have strong feelings on this issue! It's a personal choice thing to me, which was why I decided to go with the idea of "showing respect" in my rant. I try to adhere to the "PC" labels because that's what the labelled people want, not out of fear that someone will think I'm a horrible person if I don't. And I don't (usually) draw conclusions from people's use of "non-PC" labels. They're either out of the loop, or I know they mean no harm.
So yeah, it's often taken far more seriously than it ought to be by folks on both sides. And that is annoying, because it throws the practice itself into a suspect light. People are quick to say being PC is bad, when what they're complaining about actually has little to do with being PC. Some people are assholes, and they give being PC (or not being PC) a bad name.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:04 pm (UTC)Good job!
Date: 2005-01-26 05:06 pm (UTC)I have a question: "It's not Native American, it's American Indian" and an Indian (from India) residing in the States is called...?
Fact: ice has less mass than water Sorry to be picky about this is correct if you add "to the same volume" what's inferior is the density.
I have another question: Don't you have at the States a certain list of topics everybody should learn despite their beliefs?
That was a long sentence, I hope it makes sense.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:08 pm (UTC)Creation science baffles me quite frankly. It's really not an issue over here (I'm in the UK) it just gets a sentence at the end of a lesson or a chapter in a text book. "...And some people believe in creationism or the Steady State Theory." Then everyone moves on. It hurts my brain to think that this is being taught as fact anywhere - let alone the most developed country in the world.
I attended a lecture by Harry Kroto (the guy who discovered Buckminsterfullerene) yesterday, which was amazingly cool. At one point he showed a video of the Senate majority leader (he was at the time, I don't think he is any more) telling a room full of students that it was pointless for people like him to study physics and maths for four years. And they agreed with him. As Harry Kroto pointed out, it was a good example of an idiot in full flight.
I think I've rambled enough now. Although I could go on for a bit about root systems and osmosis and active transport. Photosynthesis too, mustn't forget that.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:20 pm (UTC)Er...not exactly. If you freeze ten grams of water, there will still be ten grams of ice. Ice floats because it's less dense than water. The water molecule's electron geometry forces the molecules to align in a hexagonal crystal lattice, so there's lots of empty space between molecules, even though the structure is ordered enough to be a solid.
I did, however, enjoy the rest of your evolution rant. :)
Bah to Harvard. Did you see the news recently that the president of Harvard gave some speech and insinuated/said/or something (I don't remember exactly) to the effect that women are inherently worse at science and math then men? Yuck. Glad I didn't apply there...
I think you make a very good point about the whether v. how of evolution. I'd honestly like to see some religious person tell me that we haven't evolved since we got here, not even with our appendixes (appendices?) shrinking and wisdom teeth becoming less frequent.
Science definitely does need to be taught bettr in schools, and more people need to be encouraged to study it. I think a lot of people tune science and out because they find them intimidating, which is a major problem. I think we really need to work on changing people's perception of science and math as not only intimidating but also socially dangerous. I mean, if you're good at math, you must not have any social possibilities at all!
I look forward to reading more of your rants!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:30 pm (UTC)I grew up in church my father is a preacher, I remember asking one of his assistants about the fossils and other things that proved evolution. Do you know what he told me? He said Satan put them there to lead us astray. I leaned more toward evolution after that because I just couldn't fathom what I was told being true.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:36 pm (UTC)Ok...so, roots - Primarily used to anchor tree in the soil, and also are used to 'suck' up water...I believe some trees can form a symbiotic relationship with a...I think it's a fungus, to aid in Nitrogen 'pick up', which apparently aids in growth, hence why people fertilise their lawns with it (because it's not a popular element), anyway, water is transported using...Xylem to the rest of the tree.
Photosynthesis is used to make energy (read:Food) for the tree (by using carbon from the atmosphere in the form of Carbon dioxide, and Hydrogen from water) and is transported to the by Phloem. I think I could have these backwards.
M'k, for me, and my waning belief in Christianity, 7 days isn't literal, more of a symbolic 7 days...And I tend to ignore the bit about God creating a "greater and lesser light to rule over night and day" or however it goes. *shrugs* I went to a United Church, and was told by numerous teachers that since the bible was written after thousands of years of oral tradition, things are going to be a bit off.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:36 pm (UTC)Yes. Yes. Yes.
I had a Biology teacher in senior school who was a creationist (although she never mentioned it in class, she taught the syllabus and that was it) which just plain confused me. I can understand people believing that a deity (insert religion of choice here) created the universe and then it evolved, even if I don't believe it myself; that ties together scientific observation and religious beliefs. But to completely ignore scientific observation altogether... I don't get it. Yes, science needs to be questioned, else how will we ever push our knowledge forwards and learn more. But how can you ignore the proof in front of your eyes?
What are trees made of? That is, how do these massive organisms get the materials they need to grow so large?
They photosynthesise: carbon dioxide + water (+ sunlight) -> glucose + oxygen.
They effectively breathe in carbon dioxide from the air around them, and then release oxygen. They do get water and nutrients from the soil as well, which they need to grow.
Just one point, Fact: ice has less mass than water (which explains why it floats). Ice is less dense than water, which is why it floats. When water freezes the mass stays the same and the volume increases.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:40 pm (UTC)But it also covers my point, which is that the frustrating part of having all these labels around is that not only can you offend someone totally by accident, using a word that would never in a million years offend you, there is no handy flowchart of what is and is not offensive. Instead, you basically sit around waiting for people to call you a racist when you're not these days. :P I hate that.
PS: My example about members of my family not being kind about Koreans was not meant in any way to imply that I have a problem with Koreans; I was trying to point out that just because someone is Asian, that doesn't mean they are automatically not prejudiced against any other Asians. It didn't come out very well, and I'm sorry if you were left with a different impression.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:42 pm (UTC)OK, I'll give it a shot, and I haven't looked at any of the other comments.
I'm not sure I understand the question, honestly. Trees are living organisms, so they're made out of cells, although if I remember 9th-grade biology correctly, there are differences between plant cells and animal cells. But, anyway, they grow large in the same way that a human fetus grows large. Trees absorb nutrients through their roots, and they also convert sunlight to fuel through photosynthesis, although I couldn't begin to explain how that works. Twenty years ago I probably could have.
Is that sort of right?
Anyway, *thank you* for standing up for so-called political correctness; it annoyed the crap out of me when the right wing started using that term to bash what I always considered good manners.
Just out of curiosity, do you think there's a basis to the claims that universities deliberately stifle conservative thought? Why do you think there are fewer conservative university professors than there are conservatives in the population at large? I have theories, but I've been away from school so long I don't know how valid they are.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:46 pm (UTC)Of course, we didn't start in on evolution until my final year in high school, even though we learn about genetic drift, mutations, etc. in grade 11.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 05:52 pm (UTC)Dur.
Even if you take the Bible to be the literal word of God, my thinking is, God has to somehow make the incredible task of creating our universe understandable to our puny human minds, so of course he or she is going to use metaphor in speaking to humans. Genesis basically comes down to God saying "Look, first I made the physical world, and then I made animals, and last of all I got around to you folks," and really, that sounds like a pretty good extremely simplified explanation of evolution to me. Seven days? If God said "several billion years" to whatever Jewish prophet was out there writing all this down, chances are the Jewish prophet would go "Several billion YEARS?!?!? Holy fuck, that's like - like - a billion summers. I wonder how many dates you would need to eat for a billion summers? Or fish? Man, just forget about how many fish that'd take." And God would be on to Ruth before the prophet got his shit together enough to pick up his little chisel and start writing again. Humans aren't very bright. If you take the Bible at face value, God's a heck of a lot smarter than we are. So I'm perfectly willing to believe God'd dumb it down for us.
What always bugs me is that if you believe that God created the universe, it follows the universe is evidence of God's work, and I believe it's *better* evidence of God's work than some document written by humans and preserved by humans and translated by humans for the past few thousand years. See above, re: humans are dumb. So why the big hoopla when the universe (created by God) offers itself up as proof that the Bible (written/maintained by humans) has some continuity errors in it? We're dumb! Aren't you people all about God is supreme and all-powerful and all that? It's way more likely that we fucked up in our understanding than it is that God naughtily refused to do things the way he said he did it.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 06:00 pm (UTC)You're right in saying that one never knows when they will offend someone. It's hard because I know that some slurs that offend me, do not offend others with the same background. It could depend on experience though. Once one hears something said in a derogatory, and hateful tone, one will always associate it with it, no matter how often they are told that "It isn't a offensive term anymore."
Do I prefer being called Asian? Yes. But, I'm not that offended if I'm called Oriental, either. I try to tell people that I prefer Asian over Oriental, but often times, I feel like I'm coming across as snooty.
I forget where I'm going with this. Carry on.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 06:00 pm (UTC)I also understand your point completely and I think there would be few/if any people who would question an Asian person's right to say Oriental instead of Asian. I am interested as to your family self-identifying as Oriental, however, since it's a word *I* have always found to be closely associated with a Eurocentric view of the world. I'm also Australian, however, and we're fairly touchy about Eurocentrism: we're simultaneously cursed with cultural cringe *and* a desperate rejection of any other country's superiority.
Keeping in mind your family's history with the word "Oriental", would you be okay with reading a headline in the newspaper that included the term "Oriental"? For example, "A meeting of Oriental leaders today convened in Geneva" or "Police bust Oriental porn ring" or "Young Oriental girls in sex trade" of even "Examing the tragic Oriental tsnuamis"?
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 06:13 pm (UTC)I have a problem with being called Oriental: it makes me feel like a exoticized hooker being ogled by middle aged white men. Part of this comes from the fact that the word Oriental came into use at the same time as the Orient was perceived as being full of spices, mystery, sexy slave girls, fine carpetry. Part of this is that Oriental is still used, within certain contexts, to evoke those self-same connotations. Basically, to me, Oriental = exoticisation.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 08:01 pm (UTC)Basically, people make sense of this by talking about Directed Evolution, also known as Everything Happens for a Reason. God creates the universe and the process of evolution begins, but it all happens according to some kind of plan. In a nutshell.
Of course, this view of God tends to make me think of a small child with an ant farm sitting there going, 'HEY if I do THIS, then THIS will happen and WOW that's really COOL!' Though I suppose it's rather an endearing view of God to have.
The problem that I have with Creationists (perhaps that should be *A* problem I have with Creationists), is that it's a very human-centered view of the world. In a very arrogant way. As in, we are the high-point of creation, everything exists for our benefit, the creation of the world only happened so it would be around for us to live on and so what's the point of evolution? Nobody was around to see most of it. Whereas I tend to think that God made mountains (and also dinosaurs) because God really likes mountains (and dinosaurs).
Not to mention the fact that there are TWO creation stories in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, so how do you reconcile that?
Why do so many people cling to this ancient myth about how the world was created, when they've rejected the other myths?
In a sense, it's all to do with the Protestant Reformation and the idea of scriptural authority. The various reform movements returned to scripture (meaning the Bible) as the ultimate source of truth, which was good at the time because privileging the original ideas of Christianity got rid of a lot of abuses that had developed in Christianity. But the problem with seeing the Bible as THE source of truth is that it encourages people to take it literally, privileging it over the truth revealed by human reason and human experience, and losing sight of the fact that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are literary works as well as religious ones.
It's hard to abandon this myth because people don't want to see it as a myth; they've defined their culture, in opposition to another, formerly dominant culture, around they idea that it is part of the absolute TRUTH. The analogy doesn't quite work, but it would be like asking the average contemporary American to stop believing in democracy because there is scientific evidence that it's a harmful and abusive form of government.
Wow, that got really long. Sorry 'bout that.
Re: Good job!
Date: 2005-01-26 08:06 pm (UTC)an Indian (from India) residing in the States is called...?
Uh... just Indian, I guess. Actually, I'm not sure. *scratches head*
Don't you have at the States a certain list of topics everybody should learn despite their beliefs?
Well, historically, school control is left up to local authorities. Many states are staring to take a bit more control, which is causing a lot of grumbling. Local school councils have less and less power over curriculum, and that's why the evolution issue keeps popping up. A few states have toyed with the idea of letting it be taught alongside actaul science, but the scientific community has made such a fuss that it hasn't happened. Yet.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 08:08 pm (UTC)Yes, photosynthesis! Trees are made of air, dude. Amazing!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-26 08:08 pm (UTC)