Ovi Magazine : Another Scientific Dark Age? by Jack Wellman

Newsletter

Contact

George Kalatzis - A Family Story 1924-1967

WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn

Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

BBC News : -

iBite : -

Another Scientific Dark Age?
by Jack Wellman
2007-02-26 09:55:15

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Englishman John Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the 'affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves' these were the 'Dark Ages'.

Draper's work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller. However science became totally prejudiced against new and even ancient knowledge.

Science had it’s own Dark Age. One in which tremendous amounts of evidence proved the earth round. No place was even given for arguments against a flat earth. It was anathema to current, accepted beliefs. There is great danger in this philosophy of “their way or the highway“.

If Creationism or Intelligent Design are not allowed into the classrooms and textbooks as alternatives to evolution and the origins of life, then there would be no room for educator’s goal to create “critical thinking” in each student. How do you compare and contrast, classify and quantify, etc… with only one theory?

Scientific methods are worthless by themselves. If we teach evolution as fact and the only possibility, especially since it is still called a theory, then we cut off all debate, other possibilities, other scientific evidence to the contrary. This leaves no room for open discussion.

I fear another Dark Age of science is coming, a loss of Freedom of Speech, another blinding by science and perhaps another “flat earth“ mentality.

Jack Wellman Box 171, Belle Plaine, KS freewebs.com/freegrace 2007 620-488-2905

Ovi-lehti Ovi

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author


Comments(7)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
(comments policy)

Sand	2007-02-25 11:50:33
As creationism (under the disguise of "intelligent design")had any logical underpinning it might be worthy of presentation to a critical audience. Unfortunately it is as acceptable as folk tales of fairies or astrology or other popular nonsense with only its doubts as to the possibility of observable forces to create visible effects. Since evolution is confronted only by the speculations out of traditional writings of a primitive society that have been proven time and again to be total nonsense, there is very little sensible opposition to the solidly fact supported and scientifically accepted theory of evolution.


by	2007-02-25 19:56:47
Creationism is a valid theory, except most believers do not take it to its most critical and only point of validation. When our Universe was Created that is the point of Creationism. From there, our Universe, and mankind, evolved into what it is. In fact it is still evolving as the celestial findings by science has shown us. Therefore, we are both. Time is the only discrepancy.


Sand	2007-02-25 20:52:01
The problem with creationism is an extension of the problem of the existence of God. It poses questions which are outside the possibility of answerability. If there is a God where did it come from? What created it? What are the limitations of its powers? Not only are they unanswerable, they never will be answerable and are superfluous to an examination of the universe. For if a god can violate any of the laws of the universe then the universe is basically chaotic and science is useless. Creationism is a baseless speculation to destroy all sensible thinking.


D. Kontopodis	2007-02-25 21:09:55
Suggested reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster


Rinso	2007-02-26 08:48:59
It is good to warn against a narrow or one sided approach. Science has at present the tendency to preach the "truth". But creationism has a long history of being narrow minded itself. To quote Stephen Hawking: "A good theory is not necessarily true, it just predicts the outcome of experiments correct". Science predicts, creationism doesn't. They cannot be compared.


Grant	2007-04-19 23:47:44
Why not throw both out there and let people decide for themselves. Otherwise, someone is deciding for you what they think you should learn. One alternative is no alternatice at all.


Loren	2007-04-22 01:45:54
Whether I believe in evolution or not is beside the point. They still call it a "theory" so why not allow for other viewpoints or theories or the origin of life and matter? For hundreds of years, children were taught only one option for the earth itself. It was flat. No other possiblity, period! They could not have been more wrong.