Re: The WD theory

This discussion (if real) has less to do with the "cross" (and thus I
think that "no cross, no crown" does not really apply), i.e. the
topic how science and religion relate, and more with power over
education. You will find that the proponents of such theories are not
backed up by any considerable large Christian confession, be it
Episcopalists or Lutherans or Catholics, or any other sizable
religious group. I think the cited blog entry states this as well.
This means that a rather small group of people tries to shape the
educational agenda and get a disproportional influence. Since this
list is about linguistics, I will not elaborate more on this, but
again I feel that it's more about power than content.

However, I also think that these discussions, especially in the
biological arena, are so vivid because the extreme poles on both
sides benefit: The "Literal Exegets" - those who treat their
religious sources as texts without deeper meaning - and,"Extreme
Evolutionists", those connecting a social, political and ethical
agenda with the Theory of Evolution. Both can immunize their
positions by accusing moderate critics of being in alliance with
their opponents, and pretend that you can only have their view or the
exactly opposite one. And both Extremists get prominence, headlines,
etc.

If both sides would not try to have public spending and teaching
tailored to their views, it would be better to simply ignore them.

ObConlang: But the Wrathful Disperser would make a nice proposition
for a ConWorld, since you can start with a variety of Ursprachen that
need not relate, and one older language that has special
(magical/priestly/animistic/...) properties and is known to only a
few. Has been done for sure, but I didn't think of it.


>Hi!
>
>Jonathan Chang <zhang23@...> writes:
>>  ack!  Ya gotta be kiddin' me...
>>
>>  /rant
>>
>>  First Creationism, now this funny crap!  What's next???? The
>>  dinosaurs were Fallen Angels?
>
>No, of course 'the dinosaurs did not exist -- that's more than 6000
>years ago!' :-P
>
>If people could at least understand that religion is not about what we
>see here on earth, and that science is about what we see here, then
>there would be much less arguments.  Religion and science easily
>coexist without much interference.  Why is this so often mixed up?
>Maybe we were created a minute ago, who knows.  It does not matter to
>science, since if it was true, it would not change what we see here in
>this universe (if the creator got it right, that is), and that's all
>science tries to describe.
>
>I basically don't understand all that.  Science tells religion is
>wrong and religion tells science is wrong.  But they are both right.
>And wrong they are both in their mutual accusations.
>
>Well, this is trivial.  But obviously not trivial enough.
>
>**Henrik

Reply