The Forum > Article Comments > Faith, fervour and free speech > Comments
Faith, fervour and free speech : Comments
By Moira Clarke, published 25/9/2012Instead, such outrage is reserved for a novel, a set of cartoons, or for a puerile and amateurish video ridiculing a religious military leader who died in the late seventh century.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 4 October 2012 11:16:20 AM
| |
Dear Banjo,
You could accuse anyone who makes a public statement of lobbying depending on how you choose to define lobbying. And I wouldn't advise you believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 5 October 2012 6:08:40 AM
| |
>>And I wouldn't advise you believe everything you read on Wikipedia.<<
Yeah you should stick with a trustworthy source like Conservapedia: http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 5 October 2012 8:41:57 AM
|
Dear Dan,
.
Thank you for explaining your comments and placing them in context.
We seem to be basically in agreement except for a couple of points where my vision differs.
I did not suggest that science "progressed by means of majority vote". I indicated that "the state usually bases its teachings on state of the art scientific knowledge" and that "for the time being, there is a fairly large consensus among biologists that we have no better explanation of life in all its diversity than Darwin's theory of evolution".
I noted that it was on the basis of this " fairly large consensus among biologists" (which you qualify as a "majority vote") that "for the time being", the state chooses to teach evolutionary theory rather than intelligent design theory.
However, I do agree with you that science does not "progress by means of a majority vote". If, therefore, at some future time, "the majority vote" were to swing in favour of intelligent design theory, obviously, science will still not have progressed one single iota.
You indicate that " With regard change in public school curricula, no creationist organisation is lobbying for creation to be inserted".
In fact, I had in mind the US when I wrote: " Lobbying for a change in school curricula is putting the cart before the horse".
Perhaps you might like to check out the following Wikipedia article on the question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_in_politics
It is true that, as you say: " Yet they (creationist organisations) do argue that there be freedom for evolution to be questioned and its weaknesses be open to query".
Their lobbying activity, nevertheless, seems real.
.