From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 14:21:46 GMT
> As I read the posts that reacted to the article about allowing the
> teaching of "alternate theories of origin in biology"
First, "creationism" is not an "alternate theory of origin in biology", they are
"alternate cultural mythologies". These can be compared in their own field, and
as I've stated many would have no objection to such a comparative mythology
course.
Allowing "alternate theories" with a literal mythological background
uncritically into other fields (such a biology) is a gross form of aggressive
de-enlightenment. What's next, the "alternate theory of geology" of the earth
being flat? The "alternate theory of genetics" describing how all dna derived
from two hosts, TWICE! (oh, wait, according to the bible, Noah slept with
several of his daughters, not just one). Why not the "alternate theory of sex
education" that says that all menstruating women are unclean and should be
locked up for seven days.
IMHO, if a mythology wants to "come out" and call itself a "theory of biology",
it has to be able to deal with contradictory evidence in a reasonable way, and
evolve as new information becomes available. It can't just dismiss all
disproving evidence as (1) invented by "liberal academics with an agenda", or
(2) the works of Satan. This is "dubious science" by "conservative
propaganda-ists with an agenda".
But, Platt, since you appear eager to open the door to "alternate theories",
then I think (being the liberal academic I am) you'd fully favor teaching those
Indian population and genocide accounts in the schools. We'd teach what really
happened to the Haitian natives, and the ugly, hegemonic side to US foreign
policies. A good "alternate theory of politics" we could teach would be the
capitalist myths and the betterness of other systems around the world.
in a Wisconsin
> school I was reminded once again of the following passage from Lila:
>
> "There are so many kinds of problem people like Rigel around, he thought,
> but the ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals.
> Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to
> themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the morals to
> make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves. It
> doesn't matter what the moral code is- religious morals, political morals,
> racist morals, capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie morals-they're
> all the same. The moral codes change but the meanness and the egotism stay
> the same." (Lila, 7)
>
You see, you cry against the elisist of what you call "liberal academia" in
denying creationism a place in biology, but then use that same "moral elistism"
to dismiss alternate theories that challenge the "conservative propaganda". If
we accept "creationism" as biology, then certainly you'd favor the teaching of
the Indian genocides, yes?
Or are only conservatives' "alternate theories" valid?
> Perhaps we need to be reminded from time to time that Pirsig himself
> offers an "alternate theory of origin,"
Not that I could speak for Mr. Pirsig, but I'd bet my wealth on the knowledge
that he'd alter his theory if he became aware of valid, contradictory evidence.
His support of the MOQ shows evidence that he was not interested in creating a
dogma, but an evolving understanding.
Your "creationism" is nothing but dogma, pure and simple.
Consider Graham Hancock's "alternate theory of history". If you read his books,
you'll see that the explains contradictory evidence, and over the course of his
research renounces and reshapes his arguments as new evidence comes in. When
pre-inundation mapping challenges what he thought could be true, he goes back
and rethinks. Here is a man who, like Pirsig (though I'd stop the comparison
here), is arguing against static social patterns of thought by proposing an
alternate account. But unlike creationism, they are not advancing blind
dogmatism, they are advancing evolving understandings designed to respond to
new evidence. These are the types of "alternate theories" that by virtue of
their strengths will overcome (I am confident) static social patterns of
thought. Creationism can not do this, and this is why the right has to force it
through the courts.
and that defining an entire group
> of fellow citizens with a different view than your own as lunatics, idiots
> and purveyors of insanity is a gross form of bigotry.
Thank you. I'll accept your apology for your portrayl of "liberals" as such. It
takes a big man to admit his bigotry, thanks Platt.
The irony of such
> pejoratives coming from those who preach inclusion, tolerance and
> diversity is not lost on the rubes who came out in droves in the recent
> U.S. election to defeat the forces of elitist secularism.
... by advancing elitist pseudo-christian nationalism. How nice.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 15:16:24 GMT