The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category “mythology”. I expect it will draw much media attention. The university public relations office will have a press release on it in a few weeks, I also have contacts at several regional newspapers.(cf. Telic Thoughts, emphasis added)
Of course, I won’t actually be teaching I.D. and creationisms, but rather I’ll be teaching ABOUT I.D. and creationisms as modern mythologies, indicating that these ideas have no place in a public school science class, but can certainly be analyzed in humanities classes for their function in society.
So far, six faculty have eagerly signed up to lecture. I can probably pull Chancellor Hemenway into this also, especially in the light of his public comments supporting evolution.
Doing my part to p*ss of the religious right...
I'd like a course on mythologies, the gods and mythohistorians who think that extraterrestrials were the gods. At least they bring up anomalies like twelve inch holes drilled through granite in the "copper age," engineering feats like using hundred ton blocks for masonry, etc. But nooo, instead the only narrative allowed is that Ape-man this and that mixed in with idiotic mythological narratives of Naturalism. For all ancient peoples were just superstitious and stupid. Let's just decide before looking into anything that the only type of answer we'll allow in science is that we have a common ancestor in non-Life, perhaps an ancient mud puddle is our ultimate common ancestor.
But anyway, note how he knows his allies in the Old Press as they tend to run in the same leftist Herd. I once got in argument with a journalist and simply edited his second message as opposed to his first since he had no reply on the issue: "I am open-minded. [...] My mind is made up on this issue!" He thought that he was thinking a little thought at first, oh how he had thought so. Then like journalists sometimes do he realized that he could not think through his brain. They like to play pretend anyway.
At any rate, the main reason that many American University professors will not be teaching about ID is because they are mentally incompetent when it comes to conceptual thinking. They favor the attempts at the "biological thinking" typical to Darwinism instead. It seems to be the result of a sort of cosmic Oedipus complex leading to the urge to merge into Mommy Nature. That feeling is typical to those who deny all of the Right and so feel their way along blindly with what is Left.
The mind of that type of professor reminds me of other professors, just exchange the dread "fundies" (They might tell you about Jesus. Oh, my!) for "the Jewish influence" (The ethical code worship of the Jews, it's just like a disease or somethin'!) and you can understand their practical and violent resistance to transcendence.* The foundation now at issue among this type of Herd in the American Republic is the same one that was at issue a relatively short time ago in another Republic:
The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad...(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.
Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7) (Emphasis added)
Modern Darwinists get a little frantic about maintaining the same foundation, their urge to merge seems to be the result of the same psychological dynamic again. So if most of the attempts made by American professors at refuting ID, even apart from their rude tone, strike you as unconvincing and hollow, it is not a weakness do to inferior training but to an inferior form of "thought" typical to those who only think that they are thinking. That's why their main argument consists mainly of murmuring about "Science, science..." as if scientism is true and science can be treated as some sort of ideal abstraction instead of a tool to be used to give people some idea of what they already have ideas about.
The main talking point of "Science, science....why, right now I feel a little science overwhelming me!" is sometimes followed by weak critiques that are lacking in conceptual thinking and so are an associative argument of this type: "It's just like the theory of gravity or the earth being round or somethin'." These are common, as there is nothing else to do but to shift to something else when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
*One political philosopher defined Fascism as the practical and violent resistance to transcendence, which is a good way to begin to define that which tries to avoid definition.
[Related posts: Anti-ID Rhetors, The Flat Earth and "It's just like gravity."]