FM>   I read in the paper just a day or two ago that the Academy of Sciences 
is,
FM>apparently for the first time, providing a paper for the use of teachers 
and
FM>school boards trying to give them material and bolstering in their efforts 
to
FM>resist the ignorance that has impelled in so many places the local 
government
FM>and teachers to shy away from the solid substance of evolutionary science 
in
FM>their teaching because they are frightened of the ignorant forces of
FM>creationism aligned against them.
I think that's a good move.  There is a quiet but huge, well-funded
campaign going on now to get 'stealth' creationists onto local school
boards.  Many of the current members of those boards are clue-free
about the whole debate, and unless they know some science, they can't
refute the creationist boilerplate.  That happened here in NM a year
or two ago.
FM>   Not even Chardin would have wanted his paleontological studies at an
FM>earlier age to have become evolutionary doctrine despite his speculations
FM>about a "direction" in the evolutionary "within of things" incorporating 
his
FM>findings into his mysticism.  Science and doctrine, simply put, ruin each
FM>other when they are "forced" together into some kind of merger that 
destroys
FM>both.
Chardin once wrote an odd remark -- that I don't have in front of me, alas --
that put a strongly religious spin on evolution.  something about how
it was the light that heretofore must illuminate all of science.
I don't think it was an intentional blurring though; I think he was
just accustomed to theological phrasing.
Interestingly, the prototypical idea that became the big bang
theory was put forward by a Jesuit who was also a physicist.
Some have said that it has an odd resemblance to the Christian idea
of origins.
FM>   The Academy of Science had, apparently, decided to take this unusual 
step
FM>due to circumstances and I applaud it.  Creationists will, of course, leap 
on
FM>this as an example (for them) that the sciences are doctrinal.  But I 
hink
FM>they are grasping for straws.
Yes, but with several millions of dollars to grasp with, alas.
The myth definitely has its place in humanity
FM>but NOT in working science.  But science must ALSO recognize the 
persistence
FM>of myth as a part of reality - as I think I've seen you affirm as well.
For one thing, people don't seem to do well without an unconscious
'story' for their lives.  As Eric Berne argued in the 60's, kids
have such a strong need for a story identity -- script hunger --
that they will accept even a loser script and dutifully act it out
(unconsciously, of course).  I've sometimes wondered if anyone
in the philosophy biz has ever compared Berne with existentialism.
See how neatly I got this back on topic?
 * SLMR 2.1a * Marriage is like a novel, except the hero dies right away
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------