Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mark
From: mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.religion
Subject: Re: Can Creationists Contribute to Science?
Message-ID: <3439@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jan-84 12:21:49 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3439
Posted: Mon Jan  2 12:21:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jan-84 12:21:49 EST
References: <1330@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 37

in the recent arkansas "monkey trial", the judge hearing the case
ruled against the teaching of creationism in public schools, stating
that it was a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce christian fundamentalism.
the evidence presented included letters exchanged among creationist leaders
cautioning one another that they must conceal their religious motivation, 
and suggesting ways of doing so.  (science, 215:934-943, 19 feb 82)

i suggest that this proposal is a first step towards doing the same thing
at a higher academic level.  by a great deal of quite laudably idealistic
talk about the need to separate science from particular philosophical
bents, it implies that science is currently carried on in a narrow-minded
fashion.  it even states that there is prejudice among scientists against
certain world-views.  all this should make the reader anxious to eliminate
this bias and injustice.  but when it comes down to specifics, what biases
get mentioned?  why, anti-religious ones (surprise!).  one of the proposal's
stated goals is:

    	To restore science and all of scholarship to the condition of an
	open-ended search for knowledge and understanding.  The present
	condition of science leaves open only the ends toward non-God,
	impotent-God, or irrelevant-God.

note the very christian-sounding "God".  i think that the ultimate aim
of this proposal is to make matters of christian faith acceptable in
science, and to get them taught at a university level.  this would also
tend to introduce such matters into the public perception of science.
with this the public can have its science and its gods (or someone's God)
too, and attack those who would separate the two as unscientific,
rather than as anti-religious.  this side-steps insistence on the
separation of church and state, while still bringing the church into
science and science teaching (the two are explicitly linked in the proposal).
and even if the battle is lost in academia, it may be won in the forum of
public opinion, which is, after all, where the votes are.

				mARK bLOORE
				univ of toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark