Shining One,
You are obviously a purest at thought. Your piece was intersting and enjoyable. Thank you. I'm not sure you wished to elicit comments, but here's mine anyway.
What is most interesting to note is the somewhat ironic scope of the two essays you mentioned, because while these works were on the OpEd pages, the Times was running a "developing" story about a church in LA that was getting busted by the IRS after the church let loose with a certain amount of "anti-government" (read: administration?) rhetoric. Is it possible that this story might be the tippy-tip-tip of the iceberg that will make evolution debate the smallest f*cking footnote in the history of mankind? But nobody seems to notice. Curious?
As for the evolution theory and the two pieces you mentioned, they were given only cursory examination because, in total, the subject comes across in a very comedic way. Like you, I believe that the Phil Johnson person is spot on in his understanding that the debate over evolution is the clash of two religions, or, as he says, "philosophies". To see what this debate will eventually result in (if allowed to go on long enough) is merely to watch "Kingdom Of Heaven" twice, once with subtitles, and once without. Or, better yet, moderate a discussion between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims for an hour.
Now, the Rabbi guy does the classical religious technique of "bait and switch" in that the discussion at hand is about the teaching of the definition of the development of life forms on planet Earth, and he brings in the the Bible. "The Bible is not a textbook.", he says. Well, lah-dee-dah, neither is the phonebook, TV Guide, or the racing forum at Pimlico, but they all have the same amount of relevance to the discussion at hand.
But the "pro" evolutionists have their own version of the B&S as well. The "common man" level of the discussion, i.e. the one your Vista school board will be considering, is so narrowed and biased in its own scope that it amounts to determination of the validity of space flight based upon discussions of sheetmetal riveting techniques, with the discussions being populated and moderated by janitors and taxi-cab drivers.
The evolution "science" is extremely dated in that, it is a science based upon what can be seen. It is merely phrenology across the animal kingdom, a study of incidental similarities. The historical origin of evolutionary theory shows that it was just another instance of backlash in the western world against 1000 years of religious and superstitous totalitarianism. The timing, placement, acceptance, and ultimate selling of evolution over the next 200 years was the inevitability of an emerging religion killing the source of its older rival. A medium stare at the science of physics, chemistry, and mathmatics against the chaos of anthropology and you end up staring at a picture of Marilyn Monroe against Roseanne Barr.
The issue of the debate is not the debate, but the proposed results. You are correct in your assessment that critical thinking is much more valuable than (supposed) specific knowledge. I rather imagine that's why you're on this board.
"What God wants, God gets." - R. Waters -
