irateplatypus

bah, this kind of discussion drives me nuts.

it all seems to say to people "ok, you're welcome to free speech... but just make sure that you hang your 'crazy sign' on the window so everyone knows. you're welcome to your free speech, of course you're welcome to it (we wouldn't think of abridging that)... only, can you please exercise it... over there. yeah, over there in the corner where none of the rest of us have to encounter it. yeah, wayyy over there. stay free buddy!"

what good is free speech if it doesn't have the chance to effect society (and, in a democracy, the organs of government)? what good is it to donate, shout, plan and protest if you assent to people putting you into a "crazy box" where both sides give unspoken assent to not take you seriously?

but irateplatypus... these people are against SCIENCE! science of all things... surely we must curb them if they're against science. that will ruin us all! can't you see they're crazy and must therefore be made unable to make real change in the world?

even though we're constitutional republic, we're still going to rise and fall according to the masses. the framers of the constitution knew that they were going to rely on the electorate for the integrity and advance of the nation. throwing up roadblocks (be they legal or simple sneering superiority) in front of those you think are crazy is only an effective (though not moral) tactic as long as you still have enough backing behind you.

the constitution doesn't provide for your theory of origins to be the default. the law, outside of explicit constitutional provisions, has proven pliable. the only way to combat what some feel entitled to name as crazy fundamentalists is to promote your idea in the public arenas... not to sneer and assume your idea should be there by default.

my solution? i am a devout Christian and believe God is responsible for creation, but i do not dispute that creationism is a mature theory that has a lot of good science behind it. to me, it seems that Christianity should cede to science what is science (or caesar's?) and render unto God what is God. the church has a poor track record with science (flat earth, geocentricity etc...) and has thought that their very faith hung on a scientific belief. time shows us that synthesis is possible... that synthesis is necessary. we now have a faith that is more refined and focused over the dogmatic embarrassments of the middle ages.

let's face it, those who promote evolution theories often do so in a way hostile to those of faith. equating those who have a different view of the way the universe started with mid-eastern fundamentalism is (sadly) tame compared to the things said on this board and in the public arena.
the discussion is so often framed in a way that one must accept evolution at the expense of genuine faith. they whine and moan when religion impinges on scientific advance but rush let a bloated brand of science tread on religious ground where it has no domain.

the Christian side needs to realize that their faith does not hinge on a scientific discovery. evolutionists who want people to look at their data honestly must not expect that people take evolution as a religion of its own. Christianity, science, and our nation will be edified only if all sides seek the naked truth. real truth-seekers must understand the advantages and limitations of their method.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill