Today's Talking Point

[lollardfish]

To compete with China in the 21st century, we need to teach our students the best possible science. Teaching creationism - by any name, and intelligent design is only the latest in a long list - is unpatriotic.

Notes: Fear of the Soviets was critical in the defeat of creationism in the courts during the 50s and 60s. Biology and biological development (i.e. evolution) are going to become only more important branches of science in the next century - for economic reasons, medical reasons, but also military reasons.

Comments

[groomporter.livejournal.com]

I've always thought a lot of people would be able to accept evolution easier if they just view it as a theory of change, not as a theory of creation. I've never gone to track down Darwin's exact words, but when I was in public high school we were actually taught that Darwin said life was "created" and then evolved to its current state.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Ah, see, this is precisely the problem. Many 'intelligent design' folks actually have no problem with the concept of evolution being the mechanism by which God allows species to develop. Their real problem is that the earth needs to be about 10,000 years old, or the Bible is wrong. Most attacks on Darwin are really defenses of the book of Genesis, even though I'm not always sure that the creationist folks are aware that's what they are doing.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I suppose it's the Bible literalists that are the problem.
I did see an interesting comment recently asking why so many creationists are social Darwinsists when it comes to other issues.

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

Well, the space race was a great thing for humankind in the knowledge and capabilities it gave us.

And, fear is a way better motivator than just about anything else, in my disappointed observation. Look how fear of terrorists caused everybody to cede authority to Shrubya, even when we knew he'd take us into this stupid war.

So, I guess we need some really good agit-prop about how the Chinese are going to take over the world.

The thing that really did us in was the absence of another superpower. This might help . . .

[bodi-kat.livejournal.com]

Problem is, fear about China taking over the world might just lead to another bloody war ...

i understand what you're saying, don't get me wrong, but it always seems that some politicos are just looking for "who can we invade next?", and they'd just JUMP on this bandwagon ...

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

The thing is: China has already won. Internal issue may derail them, but not the U.S.

True enough

[bodi-kat.livejournal.com]

But with only two real options for government, how can one really affect positive change in the USA?

[mia-mcdavid.livejournal.com]

Well, I was partly being darkly humorous, or trying to.

More seriously, China *does* have nuclear capabilities. Nobody wanted to invade the USSR, or even kick them in the shins, for that very reason.

Ah, the Good Old Days. (Dark humor again)

[bodi-kat.livejournal.com]

i did realize that, honest!

LOL- slow brain day yesterday.

[groomporter.livejournal.com]

North Korea! Give the armed forces an Oriental holiday!
Seriously though, is anyone else old enough to remember the old "Domino Theory" -The fear in the 50's and 60's that the communists were going to take over one country after another like falling dominos. I'm willing to bet that conspiracy mongers around the world are looking at Bush's efforts at regime change in the same way.

[bodi-kat.livejournal.com]

Considering they do seem to be very similar, yes, there are people who view it that way.