Intelligent Design

Thinkquote of the day: On the right to hear both sides

Spread the love

Mike S. Adams, a prof who boldly attacks the stifling sanctimony that overwhelms our culture, writes,

In the famous 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial, Clarence Darrow stated: “For God’s sake, let the children have their minds kept open – close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make a distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them be taught. Let them both live.” Have you ever met a 21st Century liberal who believes that both evolution and creation should be taught in schools? Or do they say “Let them have only one”?

Of course they say today, let them have only one – only ours.

Many contemporaries who think of themselves as liberals are not – for the most part – liberals in any sense.

No, they are materialists, naturalists, Darwinists, or devotees of a local variant of one of those deities. They cling to their doctrine with Sunday Blue tenacity. But for them every day is a Blue day. Psychologically, they have much more in common with the “Sunday Blue” leagues of yesteryear, particularly in their desire to suppress anything that offends them.

Indeed, I have become all too familiar with their cold, angry stare – whether directed at smokers lurking around the back doors of business buildings in smokefree Toronto*, people who peacefully hold up signs at intersections that say “Abortion kills children,” or anyone anywhere who questions one of their – usually evidence-challenged – dogmas.

And the trouble is, there are so many evidence-challenged dogmas. To keep up with my workload, I pick my fights. Who doesn’t?

(Not that I, as a Christian, advocate that they should hate anyone, but if they must, I do wish they would focus on totalitarians seeking nukes or terrorists wired to blow up the grocery checkout line. At least then their feelings would make sense.) 

*One of the few places where the Everyday Blues are correct is the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. But the persecutory spirit they display seems fuelled only in small part by the research results and in large part by the rent-a-hatred that now dominates their lives. And hating helpless smokers is easier than hating people who can really do us all harm.

10 Replies to “Thinkquote of the day: On the right to hear both sides

  1. 1
    Zero says:

    “And hating helpless smokers is easier than hating people who can really do us all harm.”

    ****************************
    Denyse, the easiest attitude to take
    is hate. The more one hates, the
    easier it is to hate.
    You can spend your whole life building
    something you’re proud of and then
    destroy it in a moment of anger.

    Setting on the edge is indifference:

    Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
    Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

    The Intelligent Designer says:

    “I wish you would love me or hate me. Just don’t sit on the fence.”

    Blessings
    Zero

  2. 2
    tinabrewer says:

    smokers are helpless? 🙂

  3. 3
    DaveScot says:

    Smokers are unfairly persecuted. I believe in fair persecution. Toronto should be an alcohol and caffeine free city too. That the holy triumvirate of socially and legally acceptable drugs is attacked on only one leg hardly seems fair. And don’t even get me started on how marijuana smokers are persecuted. Count your blessings in that you can still light up those horrible smelling cancer causing highly addictive tobacco sticks in private without risk of going to jail for it.

  4. 4
    Mark Frank says:

    Have you ever met a 21st Century liberal who believes that both evolution and creation should be taught in schools? Or do they say “Let them have only one”?

    Is he talking about creationism or ID?

    I don’t think many 21st century conservatives support teaching creationism in schools. Among other things it is a waste of educational resources.

    I think a lot of liberals support the teaching of ID as one point of view in philosophy classes – just not in science classes.

    Whatever your political opinion, surely it is reasonable that science classes be restricted to views that are part of the scientific mainstream – as demonstrated, for example, by recognition by national academies of science throughout the world. Otherwise any crackpoint opinion could insist on being taught because “they should hear both sides of the argument”

  5. 5
    tinabrewer says:

    I might be willing to concede alcohol, but definitely not caffeine. Secondhand effects of alcohol ABUSE are well-documented, but not of casual use. Secondhand effects from caffeine? Hardly. These are incomparable situations, not a holy triumvirate. The marijuana smokers don’t seem to much mind the terrible persecution they are suffering, but perhaps that is one of the beautiful side effects of the drug, along with cancer and impotence.

  6. 6
    JasonTheGreek says:

    Caffeine has no secondhand effects that I know of! I doubt there are any cases of deaths related to vehicles where coca cola was the cause or spousal or child abuse that was blamed on Dr. Pepper. Caffeine is used in pain medicine- I guess having less pain could cause you to attack others maybe? 🙂 I know I drive better when I don’t have a pounding headache, so maybe it’s effects on driving are positive.

  7. 7
    JasonTheGreek says:

    “Whatever your political opinion, surely it is reasonable that science classes be restricted to views that are part of the scientific mainstream – as demonstrated, for example, by recognition by national academies of science throughout the world. Otherwise any crackpoint opinion could insist on being taught because ‘they should hear both sides of the argument’ ”

    The idea that universe is eternal was the mainstream idea for most of history. Out of the mainstream, so it’d probably be considered semi-crackpot. That’s the problem with this argument. The mainstream argument for mostof history was special creation…science isn’t about popularity contests or what science organization proclaims the truth to be.

    The mainstream theory of the cause of stomach ulcers, for most of history, has been that they were stress-related, until 2 scientists posited that bacteria caused them. Others laughed at the idea and said they were crackpots, until they proved the idea and it became mainstream recently. With your argument- we should have, a couple of years ago, banned mentioning the idea that bacteria caused stomach ulcers to school children and college students alike! No scientific journals would be allowed to mention it, etc. I have a feeling the mainstream theory that was INCORRECT would still be the overriding theory today if we followed this line of reasoning.

    Public schools, I should mention, ARE Democratic. Parents pay to keep these schools open…they should surely have a say what’s being taught in the schools their kids go to and their taxes pay for (of course, non-parents pay taxes and fund schools as well, so it’s even more Democratic).

  8. 8
    Mark Frank says:

    Jason

    For thousands of years the mainstream idea was that the Sun goes round the Earth. It is no longer mainstream. Would you argue that it should be taught in schools because it was once mainstream?

    The mainstream idea of the cause of ulcers changed because, as you say, the scientists in question proved the idea. They proved to the majority of their colleagues. At that point it became sensible to teach in science classes. The same with plate tectonics and any other scientific theory that started off as a minority view and became accepted. You don’t establish a scientific theory by persuading lawyers that it must be taught in schools – you establish it by proving it to other scientists. Sometimes that is difficult – but it is the only sensible route. Otherwise any crackpot theory with a big enough publicity budget can establish itself as the truth.

    And you don’t teach something as true because the majority of parents want it taught as true. That way the truth would change with the fashion and become established by publicity campaigns.

  9. 9
    JasonTheGreek says:

    No Mark- the way the argument you’re putting forth goes…for thousands of years it wasn’t mainstream to suggest the earth revolved around the sun (which we know to be true). It would have been labeled a crackpot theory and banned if we use your argument that science, TRUE science, is what the scientific organizations say it is. Back in that time, I’m sure we would have seen funny stares at those who suggested the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Would they have been denied tenure? Would the journals banned any mention of it?

    It’s not about high schools teaching the subject- it’s more along the lines of a wholesale banning in all aspects. Journals won’t accept the papers, college professors are being attacked if they even hint of any support for ID, Richard Sternberg comes to mind, etc.

    The ulcer guys may have been laughed at, but no one banned the idea outright from the journals, campuses, symposiums, etc. That’s the difference.

    So, I think you’re simplfying the issue when you portray it as a case of lawyers trying to fight their ways into high schools and such…when, in fact, scientists who support the idea, professors as well, are under attack when they come out the closet, so to speak, on the subject. Journals won’t allow papers that mention it, yadda yadda yadda. This is not how science works. You don’t ban ideas and then claim to be fair and balanced on the issue.

    Local school boards should choose what is taught, as long as it doesn’t violate any laws, the Constitution, and no one gets hurt, and that the teachings don’t lead to violence, societal degradation, etc. Parents should be able to say what their kids are taught in high school. Provine says that NDE means there is no God, no meaning in life, and that we’re all destined for death and oblivion and nothing matters period. Is that science? He’s a well known guy- what organizations is a member of? If he says this is the truth and Darwinism proves it- is it science? If so, do we force parents to shut up and live with the fact that this is what our kids are being taught?

  10. 10
    bevets says:

    Clarence Darrow stated: “For God’s sake, let the children have their minds kept open – close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make a distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them be taught. Let them both live.”

    I have heard that this quote is appocryphal.

Leave a Reply