|
||
Creationists Making Monkeys Out Of Americans
Recently, while driving on Interstate 5 through Oregon, I saw a billboard that gave me pause. "Are They Making a Monkey Out Of You?" ran above four panels that displayed a disturbing transformation of a startled looking fellow with a van dyke (panel #1). He acquired an ape-like mouth and nose (#2), developed a major brow ridge and strange resemblance to a Beagle Boy in Disney comics (#3), and, lastly, morphed fully into a baby chimpanzee (#4). Below was the URL WhoIsYourCreator.com.
Was I having a flashback to the Ken Russell film Altered States, in which William Hurt devolves into a rampaging primal man? Was it photographic evidence from a University of Oregon kegger? A wry commentary on the declining rationality of the American populace?
Inadvertently, it was number three: it was the Creationists at work again! The billboards (I saw another the same day) were paid for by a Christian group based in Minnesota. Their web site states, "Who Is Your Creator uses media, including display advertising, to raise awareness of the serious misrepresentations and lack of scientific proof for the theory of Evolution, Naturalism and Darwinism."
Lack of scientific proof? Are they inhabiting an alternate universe? Have we somehow misplaced several million fossils? Have we once and for all proven that radiometric dating is a secular smokescreen? Shall we relegate astronomy and biology and geology to the dustbin of science? Perhaps we should expunge Galileo's name from textbooks and go back to believing that the earth is the center of the universe.
For God's sake (and I mean: for the sake of a God unrelated to Pat Robertson), I was in Oregon, a relatively progressive "blue" state. It wasn't Kansas, a recent battleground over the teaching of evolution in private schools. The year was 2007, not 1925 (when the Scopes trial took place). Yet, faith continues to trump reason in the USA. Some 48% of Americans reject the theory of evolution, according to a recent Newsweek poll. Other recent polls have shown that about half the country believes that God created man "pretty much in his present form" at one time in the last 10,000 years. This is more than faith. It's ignorance.
If the earth was created that recently, it means that either a whole lot of prehistoric life came into being and then died off in a heartbeat, or it means that trilobites, dinosaurs, Neanderthals and modern man all co-existed in a very short time frame. Perhaps Noah made a pro-active decision not to let Tyrannosaurus Rex board the Ark.
Should we teach creationism (or "intelligent design") in science classes in our public schools? No, we should not. Neither creationism nor intelligent design is a theory that has been scientifically tested and at least partially verified. They are beliefs. There are people who theorize that extraterrestrials built the pyramids, but it isn't necessary to include such speculations in our children's history books for "balance."
The Christian Genesis chapter and creation stories from other cultures belong in religion, anthropology or mythology classrooms. There's no excuse for including religious explanations of the universe in science textbooks or classes. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is a theory supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Of course, theories are not forever; they must be tested and discarded if disproved. If evolutionary theory is replaced by something better some day, so be it. But that something better should not be a matter of faith.
Evolutionists are not making chimps (or, more correctly, primate ancestors) out of you. Rather, Creationists are making monkeys out of Americans. Our international reputation, our science education and research, our health care, and our government are suffering for it. We are electing politicians on the basis of their medieval mindsets. Look at the three Republican presidential candidates in 2007 who said they didn't believe in evolution: Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo. Look at Dubya. De-evolution has become a requirement for higher office.
In his book The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama calls for a dialogue between religion and science. He writes, "Certainly some specific aspects of Buddhist thought - such as old cosmological theories and its rudimentary physics--will have to be modified in the light of new scientific insights." I also know an Episcopalian minister who accepts current theories of modern physics and cosmology, and professes that "I have no problem with evolution. It's a beautiful thing." Would that our fundamentalist preachers were so enlightened.
We need a separation of church and state. Fundamentalists are making monkeys out of Americans, and it's a national disgrace.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Can't Make a Monkey of Me
We're in a revolution just over evolution.
The battle of ages is on.
Some scientists have claimed
We're human just by name,
That monkeys and men are the same.
But Darwin's theory doesn't sound good to me.
I might have monkey manners
But with him I can't agree.
You can't make a monkey of me.
You can't make a monkey of me.
There's not a monkey in my family tree.
I've searched on each branch from Adam to me.
I am inclined to believe
The story of Adam and Eve.
There's no chimpanzee
In my pedigree.
And you can't make a monkey of me.
--Song written around the time of the Scopes Trial, 1925.
When you can take the separated elements of the Periodic Table and combine them to make a living human being, maybe then I'll be a little impressed with the Godless theories of our existence.
(Hopefully this, a mere 12% of my original comment, will meet the HuffPo censor's approval.)
"We need a separation of church and state. Fundamentalists are making monkeys out of Americans, and it's a national disgrace."
No, I think you have that wrong; it's the Darwinists that have done that, and I mean that quite literally. Mush to molecules to monkeys to man.
But let's be fair and objective. Is 'common descent' viable? There's a plethora or evidence that it is. In a like manner, I can demonstrate a similar progression in an auto salvage yard, or by the stack of old computers sitting on the back table at a thrift shop. But do any of those examples of 'descent' give a clue as to how they came about?
Technology has evolved through man's efforts. Why is it considered by so many to be untenable that biologic forms could have progressed in a similar way? Intelligent Design is obvious to any who are willing to view life forms as they are, and the qualities they possess: Beauty, symmetry, synergy of systems, complexity, and even *purpose* are evident to all but those who stubbornly cling to the Darwinian notion.
Whether one God or many, recent or over vast time periods, design and purpose are what constitute the 'overwhelming' evidence. The rudimental dictum of Darwinism is that accidental mutations are all that was required for 'selection' to innovate. It is not only unproven, but frankly untenable. Darwin said it and that settles it?!
But again, be fair and honest regarding your criticism of any who dare to question Darwinism. Challenging its validity is *not* attacking science, but rather using science as intended; to follow new evidence. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, soon to be accepted as theory, that is intent on pursuing that evidence.
So question faith based religion if you must, not difficult using scientific yardsticks, but don't think that by extension you can place naturalism on a throne. It requires, by its very nature, an even larger leap of faith. Natural processes were (and are) involved without question, but the concept of 'guidance' in those processes should not be summarily ruled out.
The Truth will set you free.
I'm not going to argue with any of you,
but the theory of evolution has not answered
the questions it orginally thought it could.
Darwin was looking a finches and cork cells,
we've come along way since Scopes.
The people that believe in evolution...that
have never opened a science book...amaze me!
The fundies are not the only ones to blame. What's the percentage of Amurikans that believe in that invisible guy? They're not nearly all fundies. It's a small leap from believing in God (R) to believing any number of absurdities. And they never fail to laugh at Scientologists! Critical thinking at its best.
Other theories that should not be taught in school:
Theory of gravity
Cell theory
Germ theory of disease
there's so many different things i could say as a response to this, but i don't think any would really do justice, so i'll just quote Ralph Waldo Emerson.
“The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.”
Excellent post. The extent to which Americans can be misled on such a globally accepted concept is baffling. Having lived abroad pretty extensively, I can tell you the only place I've encountered such obstinancy regarding evolution is here in the states.
The theory of evolution is as widely accepted as the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, electromagnetic theory, the theory of superconductivity, et. al.
Let those who would embrace the absurd notion of a god have at it; but keep it away from the sciences. The last thing America needs right now in this highly competitive world is yet another attempt at the dumbing down of its populace (we've had enough of that during the Bush administration).
PS: Quess who brought us george bush and the war in iraq
Right on!
The real question is: Will proponents of science and rationality be given an equal opportunity to display their views?
Who sells billboard space in Oregon - the Dept of Motor Vehicles? If you or I wish to purchase 4 road signs that attack creationism, would Oregon allow it? Probably not - it would be seen as an attack on religious belief, which could not be sanctioned by the state. (Of course, if I am right, this would prove the absurdity of the claims that creationism - or ID - are just as scientifically valid as evolution, since these beliefs would be protected as religious.)
Maybe some scientific fraternity or science-friendly philanthropist should try to purchase billboards attacking creationism. If Oregon rejects them, it would open up a modern Scopes trial.
Unfortunately in our society, religion is given free rein to attack science, but science must never be used to question religion.
When did the freedom to practice a religion of your own choosing become the right to beat that religion into the rest of us?
The entire political presence of the religious right is driven by the power hungry, but powered by the ignorant.
It is time to ridicule these people back into their private cults and out of public life.
I'm doing my part by raising children who can think critically and are not afraid to be irreverent.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
