Bad News

". . . only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."

Evolution is central to our understanding of how life works. It can be complex, particularly as we add to our scientific understanding, but it is very easy to grasp the basics. Here are two good sites that provide a wealth of information:

TalkOrigins

Understanding Evolution

But instead of educating Americans about the truth and beauty of the theory of evolution (as we supposedly do with the "3R's"), we confuse people with ignorant behavior and beliefs.

The bad news and undeniable truth is that religion encourages Americans to believe things that are not true and to deny things that are true. And America is among the most religious, and sometimes stupid, countries in the world.

I don't want to be anti-religious. I am simply anti-stupidity.

Should we continue to tolerate the massive denial of science and other true things because people's "freedom of religion" is protecting stupidity? I say believe what you want, but do not brainwash children and do not let your fantasies rule over truth, no matter how useful your lies may be.

This pisses me off. I don't want to have to tolerate or have respect for people's stupid beliefs. It just encourages others to cling to their stupid beliefs. For example, serious presidential candidate and Southern Baptist minister Huckabee said: "Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict." At a recent debate, Huckabee proudly raised his hand when the moderator asked if any of the candidates believed in stupidity.

Perhaps the motivation for avoiding the study of evolution is the concern among many believers that it inexorably leads to athiesm, and then they will lose their salvation and risk an unpleasant eternity. I can understand that. In fact, many of the proponents of atheism, including Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion", explicitly use evolution to disprove many of the arguments for the existence of God. Given the strong beliefs and assumptions about life held by many religious people, this may indeed be a compelling reason to shy away from scientific knowledge - in order to sustain your faith beliefs and, of course, pass on those beliefs to the children.

But is this motivation a good enough justification for avoiding the truth and promoting lies, such as Intelligent Design? I say no. I SHOUT NO! There simply has to be a better way. Some scientists who believe in God promote a philosophy of "God in the gaps", or Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" (the "NOMA" view), wherein they feel that science and religion appropriately address different domains of knowledge and that therefore there is no necessary conflict between them so long as each sticks to its own domain. I don't find that very satisfactory. However, I think that, for now, this view will have to be sufficient as a way of moving our culture forward. But I am not the one who will have to make sacrifices. It is those with demonstratively false beliefs that will have to give ground. Give up the stupid fantasies and join me in embracing the beauty of evolution and scientific knowledge. In the meantime, those of us who truly believe in the importance of education, including science education, should be shouting from the rooftops to stop the madness.

By the way, an interesting debate on the phenomena of religion is here.

Click on comments below if you think I am stupid.

Kindles and Bits

The demise of the book continues, here.

Buffalo Values and the American Hero of our National Discourse

Why oh why can't we have a great national discourse equal to the potential greatness of American democracy?

Here is one insight.

"But that's what passes for being a "tough" interviewer these days: the pose of confrontation rather than genuinely challenging questions, the query designed to embarrass rather than enlighten, the worship of, rather than the challenge to, conventional wisdom. "