Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Question for Pianka: Was the Holocaust an “excellent thing”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] It is one thing to predict (however foolishly) that 90% of the human race will perish. It is something else to recommed that this happen on the grounds that human beings “are no better than bacteria.”

Should the job of a professor who taught that the Holocaust was an excellent thing and ought to be repeated be protected on grounds of academic freedom?

If not, then why should Dr. Pianka enjoy the right to profess his even more reprehensible teachings from a taxpayer-funded pulpit?

————————————————-

[And from another colleague:] Note also the absurdity of conjoining some views of the contemporary left: Wanting some people to die because they are Jews/black/retarded/homosexual/Gypsies/abortionists is evil, but wanting most people to die because they are wrecking the Earth (as one thinks it should be) is okay as long as it is nondiscriminatory!

Comments
To clarify, I don't presume that Pianka advocated mass murder...directly at least. He has merely stated that the obliteration of 90% of humans would be a good thing. Not just a warning it's a bad thing to be avoided and prevented, but that it's a really good thing, No matter how you slice it, if you have a bunch of people running around applauding and repeating that assessment, guess what? Some people will decide that if it's really so good, they ought to help the process along a bit. Sorry, I just don't want my tax dollars, or those of my fellow citizens in this representative government, to be paying for the propagation of that message: "A reactive approach to problems isn’t enough, we also need to be proactive and anticipate problems before they become too severe to keep them from getting out of control. Many people believe that Earth and all its resources exist solely for human consumption, this is anthropocentrism. We should allow other denizens of this Earth some space to live. I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us." One of these sentences is not like the other. Can you spot it? Kind of like a sugar coating on a poison pill, I say. What's ironic: a truly charitable, humanity-affirming response that increases wealth and creates better living conditions for the poor would solve the problem altogether. Those countries where wealth exists and human rights are affirmed and human life is valued actually have negative population growth. (Go figure.) But those places where disease and dispair is rampant have huge population growth, perhaps because parents cannot expect to have enough wealth at the end of their lives to care for themselves, so they try to have enough children to survive the mortality rates long enough to care for them. So, Mr. Pianki, please go back to school and figure out whether disease and obliteration and thinking of people as a pestilence are the solution, or human wealth and health and life affirmation. Either that, or stick to biology, because you're a political novice who just doesn't understand the design for successful, sustainable human society.Gandalf
April 5, 2006
April
04
Apr
5
05
2006
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Dear Patrick, (copying this here in case the thread below has gone dead...) Let me separate this into two points. One is the issue of the veracity of Forrest Mimms’ report of what Pianka said at the meeting. I too would prefer to read the transcript of the speech before commenting. However, it actually shocks me that the vast majority of readers commenting on these threads find it so easy to believe that the `vast majority’ of Texan scientists were vigorously applauding a call to mass murder. For me, such a claim is extremely unlikely, and casts a huge element of doubt on Mimms report. Obviously, others here find it very easy to believe that this is the kind of thing that scientists support. The second issue is about Pianka’s views in general. In the blogosphere, the main evidence for this seems to be similar to yours—the student evaluation reports. However, again I would doubt that the `majority’ of his students agree with wiping out 90% of the population, which to me casts some doubt on the single student’s report you have quoted. What strikes me is that Pianka seems to make comments which are easy to quote out of context. Maybe he is advocating mass murder, I don’t know—but for the above reasons I’ll reserve judgement. Again, I’m shocked that more people here are so quick to believe the worst! Not only of Pianka but of scientists in general.physicist
April 5, 2006
April
04
Apr
5
05
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Jared, Gandalf is right on target regarding public info. "But, on topic, since there is no publicly accessible fountain of moral truth...," Let me remind you the Judeo-Christian Bible, Islam, Hindu, all other regligions and a combo(Bahai), Secular Humanist and Atheist have their own manifesto, great philosophers of history, scientist and Science(many claim to be the ultimate truth), our colleges, libraries and our state resources all provide accessible public informationa about moral truth. Question is what decision do you make after wading into the fountain and getting wet? What stream of truth do you select? "...then upon what neutral grounds does one villify Pianka?" There is no neutral ground. SteveB made some excellent points regarding this I thought, but you seem to think it irrelavant to the conversation. We all have to make choices, even agnostics. Science itself cannot be fully neutral. Every observer of data is biased one way or the other. Science changes. Eggs bad, now eggs not so bad. Fat bad, ok, not all fat. I consider Pianca's statements completely irresponsible for many reasons. And I condemn his comments. Do I condemn the man? No, not fully, but I do think he needs to be talked to, asked questions as to why he is promoting the fact that it would be 'good for humanity' if 90 percent of it was wiped out. No matter how much Panda or others complain. The man is promoting it as a worthy idea. His students, his lectures, his ideas for equating us no higher than a lizard are the lunatic howlings of a man standing in the desert to long with nothing but his snakes for his pals. He's lost it and anyone with common sense can see that. He may not be advocating direct intervention, but he's certainly advocating it would be good. And for who? the 90 percent dead? Yes, the earth and its citizens have problems. But he is not the messenger, 4 horses or not and he has no shofar, nor has he been annointed the holy scientist for all to follow. I have an old silver plated trumpet I will sale him, even carry's the King label. It's all flashy and shiney once polished up. He can toot until the cows come home, but his message is hollow. As he focuses on the earth, materialist matters and not souls of the people. He forgets to many things, wars, famine, hail fire and brimstone, blood in the water. If he's going to preach with admonitions of the 4 horses, he should spice it up. His example is but one small part of the picture in Revelations and yet no where near 90 percent die. His Doomsday scenario is above that of God's. But then, so is most of science rhetoric.Michaels7
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
I am not at all sure that Pianka advocated someone taking action to kill 90% of the human population. It seems more likely based on what he has wrote in the past that he thinks the human population is reaching the point of being unsustainable and that a dramatic population crash is merely an eventuality. He seems to think that a virus like ebola is the most likely cause in the near future. He also expresses his opinion that such a crash would be beneficial for Earth. I want to state very emphatically that I do not agree with either his prediction or his notion that such an unimaginably horrible event could, in any way, be a good thing. I will however say that we, as a species, need to be better stewards of the Earth and that an ever increasing population makes that duty more difficult every year. I do no share his pessimism though and find it somewhat unfounded. What I will grant him that population crashes have been a historical reality and that the ecological disasters of the past century may well pale in comparison to what we may find in the 21st century. I differ from him substantially in that I have faith in humanity's ability to adjust to the future and learn from the past. I could be a bit over optimistic though. The passage below is from his website and probably is a more realistic summation of his speach than what has been presented here. What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know Eric R. Pianka I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it. Population crashes caused by disease have happened many times in the past. In the 1330s bubonic plague killed one third of the people in Europe's crowded cities. Smallpox and measles decimated Native Americans when Europeans transported them to the new world. HIV is a relatively new disease wreaking havoc in Africa. Another population crash is inevitable, but the next one will probably be world-wide. People think unrealistically because they have lost touch with the natural world. Many people today do not really know where and how our food is produced, and on what our life support systems are based. As we continue paving over natural habitats, many think that we can disrupt and despoil the environment indefinitely. We have already taken half of this planet's land surface. Per capita shares of all the things that really matter (air, food, soil, and water) are continuously falling. Our economic system is based on the principle of a chain letter: growth, growth, and more growth. Such runaway growth only expands a bubble that cannot be sustained in a finite world. We are running out of virtually everything from oil, food and land to clean air and water. Some politicians, economists, and corporations want us to believe that technology will come to our rescue. But we have a false sense of security if we think that science can respond quickly enough to minimize threats from emerging diseases. Microbes have such short lifecycles that they can evolve exceedingly fast, much faster than we can respond to them. Many bacteria have evolved resistance to most antibiotics, and viruses are immune to just about anything. Defense always lags behind offense. So far, modern humans have just been lucky. A reactive approach to problems isn't enough, we also need to be proactive and anticipate problems before they become too severe to keep them from getting out of control. Many people believe that Earth and all its resources exist solely for human consumption, this is anthropocentrism. We should allow other denizens of this Earth some space to live. I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. Simply stopping the destruction of rainforests would help mediate some current planetary ills, including the release of previously unknown pathogens. The ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind -- we are living in one of the most interesting times humans have ever experienced. For example, consider the manifold effects of global warming. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that.ftrp11
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
jaredl: commenting on the morality of someone's worldview does not equate to enforcing anything. It just comes to commenting. In any society, you have a social contract which has the power of enforcement behind it, and the members of that society are bound by that contract whether they like it or not. That is precisely why we put such great stake by notions of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion: they represent quantum leaps forward in the liberty of the human spirit to develop a true individual identity, something which is less possible under more restrictive social contracts. Nevertheless, just because our society guarantees freedom of speech, etc. this does not at the same time say anything meaningful about the deeper moral value of the protected speech. Criticizing Pianka is done on the grounds of the deeper moral code, not the political expression of freedom. It can be predicted, though, that to the extent that the protected speech is inherently amoral or immoral, the "right" to speak it will eventually erode. Rights must be delicately balanced with responsibilities, responsibilities coming FIRST, and rights following on their fulfillment. The responsibility attached to the freedom of speech is grave. It necessitates percieving the extent to which words and speeches can be formative elements in society, and taking that perception to heart in one's use of language. Pianka violates any reasonable notion of such responsibility by blithely expressing pleasure at the notion of mass death. He may have the freedom to speak thus, but his irresponsibility is actively eroding that freedom, and the consequences are inescapable: for one, it creates the instant consequence that some people do not take him seriously anymore, while others will take him far more seriously, perhaps seriously enough to act upon these destructive notions. Can he escape responsibility should such an event occur? Legally? Probably. Morally? never. Each and every act of his will (and mine and yours) is binding on him, and this is an insight and enforcement power which is far more subtle than the state. It is the WAY.tinabrewer
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Actually, yes, all behavior comes down to expression of "inner lives", and for government this necessarily means an appeal to force. This is inherent to the role of government. (Just imagine the force you'll confront if you don't pay taxes.) A decent government is based on principles that ensure that this force is used toward actions that ultimately protect and value human life. By the way, a good government also encourages freedom of conscience. Taken together, you can believe any garbage you want to, but we don't (or shouldn't) have to promote it with our dollars. And as long as your inner life doesn't translate into behaviors that harm other people's lives, liberty, etc., the government shouldn't care. So yes, I will denounce a man who is using tax dollars to declare that the destruction of 90% of the people on the planet is a good thing--especially a man who generates "this man is a GOD" and "I worship Pianka" student assessments. Yes, he is playing God, and it's a different one than the civil deity found in the Declaration of Independence. You see, if you make scientific statements, you should be evaluated on scientific terms. If you make political statements, you should be evaluated on political terms. It's that simple.Gandalf
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Does it come down to who can enforce the dictates of their "inner lives," then - an appeal to force, no less?jaredl
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
It sounds to me as if Pianka is not so much actively arguing that someone SHOULD go and do this, as he is casually and passively arguing that it would be good if it just happened to happen. This is different, but morally speaking, the depravity of such passive cowardice can lead in very dangerous directions. Lacking the integrity of a basic reverence for life, and believing, as many utopian visions do, that the "perfect world" can be forcibly brought about by one-sided human agency, this is precisely the type of thinking which made possible the genocidal excrescences of the twentieth century. Even if jaredl is correct that there is no publicly accessible moral grounds for "villifying" Pianka, who ever said that publicly accessible grounds were the only grounds? Is the inner life so atrophied that we must be silent about moral outrages because they do not conform to a watered-down publicly agreed upon morality?tinabrewer
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Missed this quote the first time through when I read the news articles quickly:
Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”
GOOD terrists would use ebola? I'd like to see that quote in context but that statement alone "appears" to indicate his stance.Patrick
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Okay, jaredl, you want a publicly accessible foundation. Here it is. UT is a state school. The organization of our states is captured in the Consitution of the United States. Here's the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now what does "general welfare" mean? And what does "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" mean? Lest one twist the words out of context, let's get the context from the United States Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." There you have it. These are political statements. In the United States, we are bound by a social contract that affirms these words, and each individual is socially bound to act AS IF they are true, even if they personally do not believe them to be true. Now for a biologist to be using state dollars and state-defined recognition and awards to undermine the very foundation of our social contract -- there's a step out of bounds. We'd better not be giving him science awards for that, and our government schools had better not be supporting that with our money. So yes, based on our publicly accessible foundations, what Pianka is saying is objectively wrong, excessive, even evil. Take it up in a political debate, but until you win the argument there, don't be spending my money creating apologetics for genocide or any other devaluation of human life. And if you do win the political argument, we've got real problems on our hands. It's very interesting how the Declaration of Independence signers saw this coming and put it in black and white, even pledging their lives to keep this kind of evil from propagating. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."Gandalf
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Because it's not obvious, to say the least, that there are any "excesses" involved. Pianka obviously thinks it would be "good" for there to be less humans. Fine. Since he's not here to clarify the source of his "good," neither what would be considered "bad," I think someone should show how, given publicly accessible facts, that Pianka is "wrong." Otherwise, how are those who villify Pianka's "excesses" superior to Pianka? Both are apparently without a publicly accessible foundation.jaredl
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
jaredl; I am not sure why commenting on the excesses of those whose morality is informed by neo-Darwinian theory is a "waste of space".tinabrewer
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
"So yes, the way they went about it was wrong, but at least they went about it. If it was wrong, the responsibility is with us for not teaching them better… " I'm not even saying they went about it wrong. I was just referring to how the article was written. The kids may have done everything correctly, and respectfully, but the author of the article wrote it in very sympathetic terms for the teacher. Ultimately, this should give us all pause, and consider the kinds of interaction we want with our children in order to prepare them for the subtle and not so subtle indoctrination that is coming down the pike.ajl
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Understand that I do not advocate anyone's death or whatever. I raise this issue because it seems to be getting sidestepped. Who convicts Pianka of being wrong, and on what grounds? From what publicly accessible source of moral authority - force and numbers need not apply - does anyone convict Pianka of sin? Unless and until that question is answered, the rest of this is simply a waste of space.jaredl
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
what is perhaps the most disheartening thing is not that a radical professor spouts nonesense, but that students have been raised to be so unthinking that none of them are capable of reacting with adequate disdain to such evil. What is equally frightening is the cowardice contained in the fact that these people are comfortable blithely discussing the killing of billions, but feel no qualms about continuing to use up resources themselves. Shouldn't they be committing acts of self-sacrifice on behalf of the earth by now? I mean in the sense of being consistent with their own worldview, not that I would ever suggest such a thing as a reasonable solution to the overpopulation of nuts at the universities...tinabrewer
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Having read both of the posts from PT and Pharyngula I would now like to read for myself an exact transcript of Pianka's speech at UT. It is claimed by Pharyngula that "Pianka was not encouraging the 'unleashing' of viruses on people, but was warning of a likely natural result (and apparently, mentioning that this would be a great thing for the biosphere as a whole, despite its dire consequences for us)." The what-should-be-obvious problem with this claim is that we have students who heard his speech react to it by writing stuff like this:
Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience “had not thought seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting.” But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook. An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction: “[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!” she wrote. “I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.” Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isn’t the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation. “Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it’s the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation,” she said.
Let's ignore Forrest Mims's allegation for a second. Why are these students walking away with the clear impression that Pianka is advocating such horrible measures? At the very least Pianka needs to be officially reprimanded and told to be more careful with his words. Having not read the transcript I cannot judge for myself, but besides being too loose with his words the other possibility is that he truly does believe in advocating such measures. At the same time he realizes that stating this clearly in public is NOT an option (yet, thankfully) and thus has resorted to a muddied message. So in short his interview with KXAN News36 is just an effort to save his career by hurriedly backpedalling. My stance on this issue hasn't been decided yet although I'm skeptical of Pianka's recent interview considering Brenna McConnell's reaction to his speech. Only Pianka himself knows for certain where he stands. On a side note, that sample "death threat" letter on Pharyngula seemed very reasonable ASSUMING Pianka is indeed advocating what is claimed.Patrick
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
As someone who pushes Christian ethics, you don't seem to practice them much at all. Dr. Eric Pianka hasn't said anything you've claimed he's said. Mr. Mims has fabricated lies which you have willingly spread to promote your political agenda. Unfortunately, your lack of ethics has caused death threats at UT. I wish I could be as Christian as you. You'll be judged someday. It won't be pretty.mamoulian
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT

Forrest Mims: 'crazy kook', says Pianka

The wingnut echo chamber has recently gone insane over the idea that Eric Pianka, an distinguished and much-loved ecologist at UT, advocates mass genocide by ebola in order to bring down world population. The allegation was leveled by disgruntled...

The Panda's Thumb
April 4, 2006
April
04
Apr
4
04
2006
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
The naturalist would be villifying Pianka if he was actually in any way shape or form able to carry out his plan. It's ok because a lot of the slave masters didn't think or at least would not admit to slavery being morally wrong because of the benefit it provided them. The naturalist are so blind they will deny a basic principle that humans have intrinsic value just to be consistent. When your world view has a problem maybe you ought to think about getting a new world view. Any man willing to publically address an audience in this manner has got to have a screw or three loose. Ricardorpf_ID
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
one last thought before I go, this entire debate is desperately important to me here and now, it is moderately important there and then, and far and beyond, well, who cares? the truth will out...carbon14atom
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
To ajl, I yeild the point you make, I did miss the paragraph about teaching kindergarten the first time around. As for the rudeness of the YEC kids, wrong yes, inexcuseable, yes. However, I see something more, which Gandalf stated well, truth is not dictated, it is discovered. (here is where I could digress for pages onto another subject entirely) I see something that I first saw in kids while in the army. An eighteen year old teenager, "given" ownership of $5 million worth of equipment and charge of 4 other men's lives. That had a deep impact on my view of the sophistication of these "kids" and their ability to handle many things like 'responsibility' and how 'mature' they are. I think we tend to sell our teens short, as a group, because we hamstring their ability to meet our expectations (in various ways, again pages worth of digression available here)and then lambast them as a group for failing to meet our expectations. So yes, the way they went about it was wrong, but at least they went about it. If it was wrong, the responsibility is with us for not teaching them better...carbon14atom
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
But, that's just it. It isn't the naturalists who are villifying Pianka.jaredl
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
jaredl, Great question. I think the naturalist is in a bit of a right spot here. On the one hand, naturalism tells us that we are undesigned molecules in motion and nothing more. If morality can be said to exist at all, it is only there because it has been “selected for” by an unthinking, uncaring natural force--the Blind Watchmaker we’ve heard so much about. And it is strikingly ironic that such an amoral force can be the genesis of right and wrong, particularly if we expect right and wrong to be binding in any way. And so the naturalist, if he cares about being consistent with his presuppositions, as the question implies, doesn’t have “grounds to vilify Pianka” because he has “no publicly accessible fountain of moral truth.” On the other hand, the ingrained sense that we have that such views are reprehensible just won’t seem to go away. What to do? In the end, the issue of right and wrong, and its genesis and basis, is one of the reasons I became a theist. Interested readers should check out the first couple of chapters of C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity, who makes what I think is a pretty convincing case, not only for the existence of a moral law, but for how it points back to the character of a personal God.SteveB
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
one doesn't villify Pianka on the basis of a "publicly accessible fountain of moral truth", nor does one villify Pianka on "neutral grounds". One feels abject horror and moral disgust with the faculty provided by the designer for this purpose: the human spiritual conscience, available to all, buried beyond recovery for many.tinabrewer
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
But, on topic, since there is no publicly accessible fountain of moral truth, then upon what neutral grounds does one villify Pianka?jaredl
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I pity the fool(s) who attempt to indoctrinate my children into the evolutionary worldview.jaredl
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
The refreshing bit is that these children are revealing that truth is not dictated, it is discovered. Attempts to the contrary will always fail, regardless of which side of a debate you're on.Gandalf
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
niceScott
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
"It is a refreshing counterpoint that cleanses the mental and spiritual palate " I found it anything but refreshing. I think the article portrayed the science teacher as the victim who couldn't teach about science because these rude YEC kids kept interrupting him with their unscientific ideas. And, very Pianka-esk, the science academy's solution for this is to try an teach evolution in Kindergarten (thats what the article plainly said!). So, now our 6 year old children will be indoctrinated with greater emphasis than before.ajl
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
oops, hitlerish is what I meantcarbon14atom
April 3, 2006
April
04
Apr
3
03
2006
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply