This is the latest in our “Stupid Driven” series, in which we offer disconnected observations we’ve made while reporting on The Controversy between evolution and creationism. These are sometimes taken from our earlier articles, but all of them were inspired by reading and analyzing the “work” of creationists.
For earlier episodes in this thrilling series, see: Part I, followed by Part II, and then Part III, and then Part IV, and then Part V, and then Part VI, and then Part VII, and most recently Part VIII. Okay, here we go:
The creationists call us Darwinists, Darwin lobbyists, naturalists, etc. We should have some readily available terms terms for them in addition to “creationists.” Some we’ve thought of using are: creationist vomiteers, supernatural scientists, Ark-ists, and Matherites (surely you remember Cotton Mather).
In US politics, if one party wins, we’ll lead the world in social science. If the other party wins, we’ll lead the world in creation science. Either way, the world will move on without us.
For those who become aggressive theocrats and claim that their tyranny is justified by the Great Commission, your Curmudgeon is guided by an even Greater Commission. It’s in James 4:7 (King James version, of course): “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” The Greater Commission is further grounded in Galatians 5:1 — Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Everyone thinks his philosophical and theological ideas are correct, notwithstanding that his ideas conflict with those of others who are equally certain. Why is there such disagreement? It’s because such ideas are untestable. There’s no immediate feedback from reality. The supernatural view has no dispute resolution mechanism when it encounters a competing supernatural view.
Among the few human activities that provide reasonably certain resolution of disagreements are science, engineering, and free enterprise. What those activities have in common is rapid, readily perceived feedback from the real world.
The Founders had it right. Where there is no realistic error detection or dispute resolution mechanism, government must be forbidden to coerce acceptance of any doctrine. Except for the protection of an individual’s life, liberty, and property (the value of which really is self-evident), coercion must be eschewed.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.