A Dover trap about to snare another school board, plus a definition of fundamentalism November 29, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Religion, Science, wingnuts.trackback
It looks like one Florida school district might be about to fall into a Dover Trap.
A majority of Polk County School Board members say they support teaching intelligent design in addition to evolution in public schools.
Board members Tim Harris, Margaret Lofton and Hazel Sellers said they oppose proposed science standards for Florida schools that lists evolution and biological diversity as one of the “big ideas” that students need to know for a well-grounded science education.
Board member Kay Fields said last week she wants intelligent design, which is promoted by some Christian groups, taught in science classes in addition to evolution.
“If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum,” Lofton said. “If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well.”
As Ed Brayton points out, you’re not supposed to talk about that “supreme being.” Merely mentioning that ID is really about religion makes it easy for a judge to apply the Lemon test and rule against the school board.
Which brings me to my favorite nugget of unintentionally revealing commentary:
“It crosses the line with people who are Christians,” [Margaret] Lofton said. “Evolution is offensive to a lot of people.”
That’s right, Ms Lofton, reality isoffensive to many people. After all, what does one do when evidence conflicts with one’s beliefs? Well, people like the Polk County School Board majority try to defame the evidence.
H. L. Mencken famously defined “puritanism” as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.” I’d chop off important body parts for a fraction of Mencken’s talent with observation and language, so it is with full knowledge of my inferiority that I respectfully submit the following definition for fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism: the steadfast defense of dogma against the threat posed by offensive reality.
I would drop “offensive”, as it implies that fundamentalist are at times unoffended.
I would rephrase it thus:
“The resistance by dogma against the threat posed by reality.”
You call anyone that name and he’s instantly discredited sans argument in certain naturalist circles, I hear–probably not yours, but somebody else’s. Ever read Plantinga on this? Hilarious. No, seriously, you must read this.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/09/c-s-lewis-and-fundamentalism.html