Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Yes! Do teach creationism in school!

with 4 comments

The US National Academy of Sciences recently issued a spirited defence of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes. (See Evolution ‘must be taught’.)

This sound advice comes at a time when the current occupant of the White House favours American students to be instructed about “intelligent design” alongside evolution as competing theories. “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” President Bush said in 2005. At a time when Presidential candidate and Republican winner in Iowa (the Churches, Corn and Conservatives state) recently progressed his campaign on the turkey wings of “I do not believe in evolution”.

Teaching children that the supernatural is responsible for the natural, teaching children that “God” originated or created and manages the universe and life is the single most anti-intellectual malefic act imaginable. It dumbs down entire generations. (See Suffer little children.)

There is as much “evidence” for “God” and its creation as there can be mustered for the stupefying idea that Gordon the Garden Gnome spake everything into existence some 15 minutes ago – complete with memories and historical records – before positioning itself in the south western corner of my humble garden, near the fish pond mind, turning itself into a plaster likeness of its former glory.

Yet the NAST report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith: “Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future.”

What utter booboisie pap! What extraordinary bunk! NASTy! How, for crying in a bucket, does “religion assist in understanding (the world)?” (See The things we do know.) I heartily concede that religion is a perfectly acceptable and undoubtedly accurate explanation for agnosy. Much like narcotics is a just explanation for substance addiction. (See Science and Religion.)

I am sick and tired of this sucking up to the religious. I am embarrassed by sceptics and scientists fuelling the Religious Wrong‘s Bronze Age tarradiddles cloaked in Dark Age fear and ignorance dressed up as a legitimate alterative for scientific explanation.

“Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world”? Good God! What, in the name of Zeus, is next, by Vishnu? Chemistry and alchemy different ways of understanding? Astronomy and astrology? Neurology and phrenology? Cosmology and the Flat Earth Theory? Anti-retroviral treatment and the South African Health Ministry’s sweet potato diet?

In my home country, South Africa, a senior clergyman recently declared that he believes in the creator god. Like one Mr Huckabee in the Yoonighted States. When good people say well intended things that are entirely devoid of fact and evidence the very future of humanity is compromised. It is as critically important as that. Period. No “accommodation” of ignorance can be tolerated. (See Tolerance.)

Evolution must, of necessity, be taught in schools. For many more reasons than the simple fact that it is the basis of biology. (See Suffer little children.) Creationism too, must, of necessity, be taught in schools. For reasons similar of teaching myth and fairy tales as human endeavours of the imagination.

Creationism is bunk. Period. The cheap tuxedo is in tatters*.

* Spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education in the USA, Nick Matzke, called Intelligent Design “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”.



Written by Nathan Bond

January 5, 2008 at 09:45

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Ah, sure. No worries. I’m still working on writing up “what is this religion thing exactly”, from my perspective. My perspective has defined our very existence as “religious”, but I’m probably abusing the word according to external observers.


    January 14, 2008 at 02:42

  2. Hugo

    I would like you to tell me what religion is if it is not belief in “God”. Such a belief is in fact “stupid” (it is besotting) and I say so with pertinacity.

    Have I ever learned from a religious person? Of course! Yet nothing that was not also conspicuously obvious without reference to “God” and religion.

    Nathan Bond

    January 11, 2008 at 12:15

  3. To rephrase: what is the point of philosophy? It is based on no evidence whatsoever…


    January 5, 2008 at 11:52

  4. You equate religion and the belief in supernatural miracles. You equate creationism and religion. With these axioms, you necessarily end up at a “religion is anti-science” conclusion. And you ask rhetorical questions, so there’s no point in even trying to explain. Well, enjoy. The feeling of a Pharisee, believing everyone around him is less holy, less intelligent, stupid even, is a nice feeling. And maybe it is true. The humbling thing is when one gets to the point where one can actually learn something from the stupid people. And not everyone likes that kind of humbling experience. They prefer arrogance.



    January 5, 2008 at 11:42

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: