How Robert Boston Became My Hero
Religion — Kevin @ 5:57 pm
http://kevinrobinson.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/how-robert-boston-became-my-hero/
taken from blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com
http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/2007/03/welcome.html
On Wednesday April 4th, Anderson Cooper hosted a discussion between
Robert Boston of the Americans United for Separation of Church and
State and Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council. The
discussion was on what should be taught in our science classes. Yoest
argued for the inclusion of intelligent design and other religiously
motivated ideas, Boston argued against.
Before I go any further I'll let you know my position. Intelligent
Design and Creationism have no place in the classroom. They are
religious beliefs and if the religious want to believe them, they're
welcome to do so, outside of the science class. There is no real
controversy about this either. There is no scientific basis to
support this either Intelligent Design or Creationism. Those who
would argue otherwise are doing so because of religious bias.
Now to the discussion and how Robert Boston became my hero, here is
the discussion in its entirety (any bolding is my emphasis):
COOPER: Well, the battle over what children should be taught in
school has been raging for nearly a century now. The question is, is
there room for compromise?
Joining us to talk about it is Robert Boston of the Americans
United For Separation of Church and State, and Charmaine Yoest of the
Family Research Council.
Appreciate both of you being with us.
Robert, let me start with you.
Polls show that nearly half the American believes that people
didn't evolve from lower life-forms, but were created, in our present
form, by God. If so many people think that, shouldn't we at least be
discussing it in a science class?
ROBERT BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE: Well, I think we need to look really not at what polls show,
but what the scientific evidence shows.
We wouldn't want to teach something in the public schools that was
factually incorrect, simply because some people believed it was so.
So, we really have to look at the science. If you look at the
scientific community, you don't see this great disparity in polls. You
see most of the scientists backing the theory of evolution.
Kevin: Thank you, thank you, thank you! The opinion of those without
a shred of scientific knowledge is not the least bit relevant to what
should be taught in science class.
COOPER: Charmaine, what about that? Why should a science class be
forced to — to teach something which mainstream science says is simply
not true?
CHARMAINE YOEST, VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, you know, mainstream science, throughout
history, has been challenged by questions. And that's how we make
advances in science, is being open to all different perspectives.
And that's all that we're calling for, is saying that, you know,
have we gotten to a place in our culture where science has such an
orthodoxy around Darwinian theory that we can't even question it, that
we can't even look at some of the gaps in the theory, and ask, how can
we do better and how can answer some of these questions?
That's all we're asking for, is an openness of dialogue and
looking at all of the research.
COOPER: Robert, President Bush has suggested that this theory of
intelligent design should be taught in public school classrooms. The
idea is that kids should be able to make up their own minds; they
should get different points of view.
Robert, what is wrong with that?
BOSTON: I disagree.
I think that there is a mechanism in science that allows for these
views to be aired through peer-review journals. And the
intelligent-design advocates…
YOEST: Well, sure.
BOSTON: … have not been able to public any research that indicates…
YOEST: That's just not true.
BOSTON: … their point of view.
Kevin: Bingo!
Let me finish, Charmaine.
And one of the important things we need to remember, too, is that
some of the ideas that groups would like to bring into our schools
have been completely discredited, for example, the idea that the Earth
is 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same
time. Scientifically, that's untenable.
Yet, that is what the creationists believe. And that is what,
ultimately, I think they would like to bring into our classrooms.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Charmaine, I mean, do you — do you believe that dinosaurs
walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? And, if so, is that
the — the basis of your argument?
YOEST: What we are looking at here is saying, there are legitimate
scientific questions on the table. And it is not true that — that
there is a complete cohesiveness among scientists.
So, we're really, really seeing an amazing censorship of anything
that questions Darwinism. And you see this kind of thing where,
immediately, the minute you question Darwinism, people like Rob come
up and say, oh, no, you're going to talk about God.
Well, you know, I think our children have more robust intelligence
and — and questioning to be able to cope with looking at all the
different theories that are out there. I think it's — I just have to
ask, what is he so scared of?
COOPER: Robert, do you believe this is really about — a debate
about science, or is it a debate about religion?
BOSTON: Of course it's about religion.
And notice how she did not answer your question about the age of
the Earth and dinosaurs and humans coexisting. I would guess that, if
you took a survey of the members of the Family Research Council, you
would find, overwhelmingly, they believe that the Earth is 6,000 to
10,000 years old, that dinosaurs died because they were too big to fit
on Noah's Ark, or that they existed alongside human beings, other
pseudoscientific ideas that has been debunked time and time again.
Kevin: The part above, and the rest of this interview, is beautiful.
Yoest refuses to answer the question. Why? Does she really believe
that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Did Jesus ride a donkey or a T-Rex
into Jerusalem?
YOEST: Hey — hey, Rob…
BOSTON: Why would we want to bring this into the classroom, when
there's absolutely no scientific evidence?
(CROSSTALK)
BOSTON: Charmaine, answer the question, yes or no. Age of the Earth?
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: You are trying to confuse the issue of conflating…
BOSTON: Age of the Earth, answer the question.
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: I am trying to answer the question.
BOSTON: How old is it?
YOEST: I'm trying to answer the question.
BOSTON: How old is it, Charmaine?
(CROSSTALK)
YOEST: I can't get a word in — that you're trying to conflate
creationism with intelligent design.
BOSTON: That's because you want…
YOEST: I'm saying that you should look at…
BOSTON: … you want creationism in the classroom. Answer the question.
YOEST: I didn't say — I didn't say that.
BOSTON: Ten thousand years or six billion?
YOEST: The only thing I have talked about is intelligent design.
BOSTON: Why are you afraid to answer the question?
YOEST: Why are you afraid of the fact that 90 percent of the
American people do believe in God?
BOSTON: I know exactly what you want to do. You want to teach your
book of Genesis as if it's some kind of literal, scientific truth,
instead of maybe possibly metaphor or lots of other history. You want
to bring it into science. It's not going to fly.
COOPER: Do you want your children — Charmaine, do you want your
children to be exposed to a belief which the scientific community has
disproven? I'm not saying that they have disproven all of this. But,
in certain cases, I mean, some things clearly…
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: … have been disproven.
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: Things which have been clearly scientifically disproven,
do you still want them taught?
YOEST: Well, absolutely. That would — that would come in, in a
history of science, in a philosophy of science.
That's why I'm saying, there's different kinds of classes. So,
we're talking about kind of a broad array of things. Your kids need to
know what opinions are out there and — and — and see what the evidence
is, consider the evidence.
Kevin: Translation, kids need to be taught stupid wrong stuff because
some people believe it's true. For instance, I believe that 1 + 1 =
11 based on my controversial theory of conservation of numbers. We
have two 1's on one side of the equation therefore we must have two
1's on the other side. Up until now the math orthodoxy has suppressed
my theories and refused to teach them in schools.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: So, for other subjects in a science class that people
disagree on, but that have been disproven, the kids should be taught
those as well?
YOEST: Sure.
COOPER: They should — they should — they should know that there
are other people who disagree on… YOEST: Absolutely.
COOPER: … just about every scientific issue?
YOEST: I'm not afraid of my kids knowing about any controversy
that is out there, as long as you put the evidence on the table and
consider what — what the debate is. That's what education is all
about, is having a vigorous debate.
COOPER: Charmaine Yoest, appreciate it, and Robert Boston as well.
BOSTON: Thank you.
COOPER: Fascinating discussion.
Kevin: I'm frightened that my scientifically enlightened children
will someday have to go to Yoest's scientifically retarded children
for government funding or something.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
