Jim heartfield:
> There is no suggestion that religious faith is being suppressed. But
> tolerance of spiritual mumbo jumbo should not imply that stupidity is on
> a par with intelligence. School students deserve to have the best
> understanding placed before them, so that if they want to believe
> rubbish, then at least they have been offered an alternative.
>
> God did not create man, who did descend from the apes. It's not a belief
> system, it is the outcome of real investigation of nature. If the
> opposite were the case, then clearly that is what should be taught in
> schools. But teaching something you know to be false is as destructive
> as teaching that the holocaust never happened, or that there were no
> such people as native Americans, or that there has never been a
> revolution in England.
>
> I have to say that I am not at all surprised that Gordon's contribution
> is made here. His detestation of science is shared by many contributors
> who now find, to their surprise, that they are in agreement with
> Christian fundamentalism. ...
You would be hard put to find evidence of my detesting science. On the contrary, in the very message you're quoting I acknowledged its powers. However, if the fundamentalists say that belief should be free and someone else says it should be coerced, then certainly I stand with the fundamentalists on that issue, although I doubt if they would care for my company.
The question is, What beliefs shall be coerced? And why? I can't see much reason for coercing belief in evolution, whether or not it is "real" or possesses other interesting metaphysical properties. I prefer a skeptical population to a bunch of true believers, myself. --
Gordon