An 'interesting' article, Mark, or, to me, frightening. It does a good
job of covering the 'controversy,' but by doing so, of course, it
doesn't really challenge, does not really find the arguments & the
arguers who could demolish these peoples' insistence that they are
actually practicing 'science.'
That one comment: '"We give for religious purposes," said Thomas H.
McCallie III, its executive director. "This is not about science, and
Darwin wasn't about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of
the world." Whew. Yes, for what they do, but when the statement about
Darwin is accepted, 'science' has indeed disappeared.
This, in the most scientifically & technologically advanced nation in
the world (or what sees itself as such)? How soon before the new
curriculum makes maintaining that position impossible?
Where poetry can help in this particular controversy I don't know, but
in the attempt to keep the language clear (if not pure) perhaps....
Doug
On 21-Aug-05, at 9:11 AM, Mark Weiss wrote:
> Who are these left-wing critics? Do they have names?
>
> On the other guys, providentially, there's an article in todays
> NYTimes,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?
> ei=5094&en=0bd235262066da5c&hp=&ex=1124683200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage
> &adxnnlx=1124636944-E19tVgi578XKuDoGzM/oDg
>
> I suspect that you'll have to go through the home page, nytimes.com,
> and register--you get an online sub, free.
>
> Mark
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
Certain gardens are described as retreats when they are really attacks.
Ian Hamilton Finlay
|