"Corvus Corvax" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
>while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
>critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.
>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
>> want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
>> Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
>> Pure hypocrisy.
>
>[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]
>
>This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
>fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
>you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
>equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.
I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).
>The problem with this logic is that there is something called
>"reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
>science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
>famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
>evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
>Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
>fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.
Nice that you try to keep a respectful view of others' beliefs there
(NOT). The problem is not what science IS, it's what science ISN'T.
Science isn't supposed to be a political tool, wielded selectively and
partially to support a particular belief system. REAL science would
demand teaching not only the theory (there's that pesky word again) of
evolution, but the PROBLEMS with the theory of evolution (and they are
many). The subject is a fascinating one, and the holes in it
thought-provoking. And FWIW, I don't disagree with any of the actual
science of evolution - we have a clear record of the evolution of the
planet and its life forms (including the inexplainable leaps from one
life form to another without any fossil records). The difference is
that I don't believe it was a random, self-directed process.
>A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
>for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
>in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
>facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which, to
>be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
>activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
>having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
>issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
>against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a vaccine
>against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination would
>weaken the message of abstinence.
I've never even HEARD of the debate on this subject (and I'm generally
pretty plugged in to what us evil fundamentalists are trying to
accomplish politically). But on the surface it sounds like a very
unlikely scenario (there has to be more to the debate than you've
presented, because the position you've ascribed to the
"fundamentalists" makes no sense at all).
>Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
>suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons.
Fantastic! When can we add the FULL facts of the current evolutionary
theory (including the many problems) to our childrens' textbooks?
> Citizens of a free,
>democratic society have a right to access the truth about the world.
We agree absolutely.
>This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the Big Bang.
I'm all for it (though "sexual biology" should be age-appropriate, and
not devolve into a "how-to course", IMHO). To me, studying the facts
behind evolution and the creation event are fascinating, and contrary
to what you probably believe, reinforces my faith in the presence of
an intelligent creator. When you understand the unimaginable
precision that's necessary to make the universe work (and I'm talking
multiple "coincidences" with precision on the order of one to a number
raised to the 50th power!), you can believe it's a design, or you can
believe it's coincidence (I simply don't have enough faith to believe
the latter).
>Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to make the
>facts about these things available to everyone, including your
>children. Even if you don't like it.
Unless of course you're of the atheist religion, in which case you'll
fight tooth and nail to EXCLUDE facts about science that don't support
your position, and you'll insist that a controversial theory is
presented as settled fact. But I guess that's OK with you?
>And I use brass nipples exclusively.
I'm mixed - I normally build all my own wheels with brass, but when I
get a pre-built wheel it's usually got aluminum nipples. That was a
down side when I lived in Florida and rode through salt spray every
day, but not so much here in the desert (where they'll last virtually
forever).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
