Its my blog and I'll rant if I want to, rant if I want to, rant if I want to...

On last post on the ID front, I ran across two great quotations which basically make the inverse argument so eloquently put by Doug Adams. So I offer both for broader consideration:

Ken Miller, a biologist, on the "improved" Kansas science standards:

"Why one would want to change the description of how science works by deleting the word "natural" from "natural explanations"? The answer is straightforward - even though the minority didn't seem to have the courage to state it plainly. They seek to turn science on its head by telling students that non-natural ( supernatural) explanations are a legitimate part of science. Why does this matter? Imagine an earth science class discussing tsunamis and applying "non-natural" explanations to the tragedy under the new guidelines. Plate tectonics are now just one of the explanations on the blackboard. They are joined by "non-naturalistic" ones like bad global karma, divine punishment for the sins of Indonesia, or evil spirits disturbed by ethnic warfare in Sri Lanka."

E.O. Wiley, another scientist, stated similarly:

"Imagine if I went to my auto mechanic and he said: "Well, it might be the brakes or it might be an evil spirit." Should I give equal weight to the "evil spirit" hypothesis? After all, someone probably believes it, this mechanic for one. Of course not, I would probably just take my car and drive down the street to the next mechanic."

This debate *does* have a strong book connection, as "these people" (which is to say, the Christian Coalition and its brethren) are the same ones who seek to ban books that offend their sensibilities from public libraries and would be, in my not remotely modest opinion, happy to enforce their thought policies on the rest of us if they were given the chance. These are the people who are seeking to ban Harry Potter as promoting witchcraft, My Two Moms as promoting homosexuality and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings for racism and offensive language (see nice banned book sites here and here.

Personally, I think anytime someone suggests “banning/prohibiting” access to a book/artwork, it is typically because the “offended” party(ies) can’t articulate a valid response…so they choose to push for prohibited access. That is, I believe the only valid response to offensive speech is more speech. You do not, for example, respond to the Turner Diaries by banning it…you challenge its veracity and its anger with more speech…spoken and written. As Oscar Wilde said, “There is no such thing as a moral book or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.”

As I said earlier, Dover gives me hope…but then again, Kansas voted out most of this anti-science board after the first round of ridiculous amendments…only to put most of them back during the next election cycle. Too many of us, I fear, read things like what is happening in Kansas and are sort of bemused by it…figuring “it” can never happen “here.”

I know the following gets trotted out too often, but it is a bit too apropos to pass up. It is attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, and offered here is probably the least recognized, but closest to the origial, form:

First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Yates, also good for a quote or two, said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." I do believe we live in dangerous times, though the dangers I worry about are not those that seem to obsess most others. My concern rests mostly upon the issue (and its related tendrils) that as society/culture/technology/mores are changing so rapidly and, arguably, radically, it creates a great deal of fear in those whose reality constructs are threatened. There is a tendency for people so threatened to circle the proverbial wagons and refuse to accept/hear/integrate the change and/or to rebel against it…at times with force, at times with regressive policy moves.

Sadly, I don’t think there is an easy answer…this has happened before and we will likely get through it…but not without literally or figuratively burning a number of thinkers at the stake, excommunicating them and/or engaging in a crusade or two. The curve of our cultural/technology evolution is not likely to be softened, nor should it be…unfortunately I am not hopeful that the pain/bloodshed is likely to be softened, either.

Hmmm, I really meant to just post the two rather pleasing quotations I ran across…not run off on another rant. I now return you to your previously scheduled life.