Lawrence.com

lazz (anonymous) says...

Great, fabulous, beautiful proposal, Dave.
Except, "political compromise" no longer means "give and take." It means, "Screw you, now sit down and shut up, leftie."

February 10, 2005 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

quinno (Patrick Quinn) says...

DR--

You are wise beyond description.

I must point out, however--Language Snob ALERT!!!--that "Bible" in the above is capitalized by convention. Lower-case "bible" is generic, a la "the bible of residential plumbing" or "the bible of baseball statistics." References to book containing the Old and New Testaments, however, are always capitalized.

That said, expecting Kline to understand the meaning of "reasonable," "compromise" and "theory" is (to lift from Dr. Johnson) a triumph of hope over experience.

February 10, 2005 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jacob (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) says...

I saw the headlines in the newsstand as I walked to work this morning, and I had an epiphany about the whole evolution thing:

I don't care.

Not that I think there's one whiff of merit to the morons who think that every scientist on the planet somehow has it wrong, but I realized that if the religious right wants to continue the dumbening of our children, I'm OK with that.

Let's face it -- any child with any sort of inquisitive mind quickly learns that what's taught in school does not always mesh with reality. Those with the wherewithal to think for themselves will always discover the truth despite any undermining by our fabulous edumacation system.

And those without the wherewithal?

Fuck 'em.

Try bring a belief in intelligent design to your interview with the college recruiter, the honor society screening panel, or your job interview and see where it gets you. I'm fine with conservatives teaching a philosophy that will allow my children to get better jobs than their children.

February 10, 2005 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

What I find interesting about this whole debate is that it's not just that the creationists don't believe in evolution, but that they don't believe in scientific method--or the whole project of science for that matter. Since it is by means of scientific method that the process of evolution has been demonstrably proven, it is precisely this which they repudiate. And, interestingly, it is precisely this which is responsible for the creation of the technology that these people feel that they cannot live without--namely, their computers, their SUVs, their TVs, their tanks. We might as well put a sticker on all of these technological advancements, "science is a theory, not a fact, and therefore this item may not actually exist. You should approach the question of whether this really exists in the spirit of critical consideration." Evolution is real and as indisputable as the existence of technology, for it is through the scientific method that both evolution and technology were determined.

Isn't it dangerous when a culture gets so alienated from its own roots that it would wholly embrace the advantages of something which it completely repudiates? Our culture embraces all the advantages of technology while simultaneously attempting to subvert the ethos and the spirit which generated those advantages to begin with. Isn't this analogous to Fascism which rose to resist liberal democracy--that same force of history which made the creation of the German state initially possible? What absurdity!!!!!

February 10, 2005 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lhs2002 (anonymous) says...

"if the religious right wants to continue the dumbening of our children, I'm OK with that."

Sadly, that's exactly what's happening. It's time the government quits holding back education in this state. Stickers on books... wasting time on the gay marriage issue instead of solving the education funding issue... when will the dangerous actions of the religious right end?

February 10, 2005 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...

Catchy, DR, and I like it, except. . . . .
Nobody tells you that they're going to take your children away from you if you don't force them to sit and read the Bible for 8 hours a day. . . .yet. As far as the sticker goes, I personally think that such a caveat needs to be placed on ALL scientific texts. What we call fact our grandchildren may one day think a quaint superstition.

February 10, 2005 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wilson (Wilson Miner) says...

How about a sticker and a vacuum-seal on every book or printed matter that reads:

"Critical thinking required."

Of course it wouldn't be required (or accurate) on the Internet.

February 10, 2005 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jacob (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) says...

Putting those stickers in public schools would be a joke -- at my public school, at least, critical thinking was hardly a part of the curriculum.

February 10, 2005 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...

Thank you - very much - for staying on point and not being distracted by the "pretty lights" of those who are using a bogus issue (open meetings) to attack. It shows real class and brains!

February 10, 2005 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

A theory is a structure of ideas that explain and interperet facts. Whether the theory is correct or not, the fact still remains. Therefore, "Change in populations of organisms from one generation to the next" commonly known as evolution, is a fact. Whether it is Darwins theory, or another, it is still a fact. So, if they want to put "the theory of evolution is just a theory," than that should be alright. But, evolution is still a fact, life changes. And it is not suprising that the people who cant accept this, are the same people who would follow something blindly.

February 10, 2005 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

manofleisure (anonymous) says...

DR,

V. adeptly penned. Me likes.

Thankfully, I am an English teacher, so my battles are fought over "Sopranos"-watching 16-year-olds being exposed to the "f" word in "Song of Solomon." And, believe it or not, some books taught to these same students actually discuss, ahem, marital relations outside of wedlock. I know, I know... 'tis shocking, but true

However, I did find these v. amusing alternative textbook stickers on the site of Dr. Colin Purrinton, an evolutionary biologist at Swathmore. They are a hoot and can be found at

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpur...

Also on the page are a variety of other links that are quite fine.

Cheerio, amoebas!
ML

February 10, 2005 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alm77 (anonymous) says...

I completely agree with you that children should be taught critical thinking (and that the "Right Wing" in particular has failed to do so) if we did teach our children critical thinking then stickers wouldn't be labeled as the "dumbing down of our children". It would be seen as something our children need to think about for themselves. I would hate to think that we are actually afraid of a sticker in a textbook.

It does seem a bit closed minded to label creationism as "dumbing down". It would seem that believing in tolerance means being tolerant of anyone who agrees with you. Many great thinkers and scientists have come to the conclusion of creationism.

Just something to think about..critically, of course.

February 10, 2005 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Fangorn68 (anonymous) says...

The fact that someone could write that "every scientist on the planet" believes in the theory of evolution goes along way toward proving the point I am about to make. Many who believe in evolutionism understand that they cannot allow serious debate on or scrutiny of their favorite theory. If it's not jammed down students' throats year after year, they may actually begin to apply the scientific method to their thinking about evolution. They may actually find that there are many evidentiary problems for Darwin's brainchild, like the dearth of transitional forms between major animal groups, or the complete lack of ancestors to the major groups that appear in the Cambrian explosion. They may also find that there are many in the scientific community who disbelieve the theory of evolution (not a majority, certainly, but a not fringe "mirco"-nority as evolutionists often disparagingly imply). If the fact that there are scientists who disbelieve evolutionary theory is a surprise to you, it illustrates how thoroughly believers in evolutionism have quashed any dissenting voices in the debate. I don't propose that creation or even intelligent design be taught in public schools. I do propose that contradictory evidence to evolutionism be allowed in the classroom. If no such evidence is ever allowed, one might reasonably conclude that believers in evolutionism don't think their theory can stand up to a little scientific scrutiny.

Many of you would benefit from going back to the books and studying exactly what the steps are in the "scientific method". Then apply them to evolutionary theory. The result will probably surprise you.

And, aegrisomnia, I must refute your "bait-and-switch" tactic. It's rather common, actually. No one disputes that "change in populations of organisms from one generation to the next" takes place. But these are all changes within a species, which you then turn around and define as "evolution". It's quite a jump from minute changes within a species to what most people think of as "evolution": muck to amoebas to metoposaurs to monkeys to man. The fact that an organism will adapt to changing conditions around it does not prove that the organism will "evolve" into a different organism.

February 10, 2005 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

(Correction: Phill Kline.)

February 10, 2005 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

murderama (Rob Gillaspie) says...

Mitzi:

Big words, coming from a little woman who thinks that mothers should stay at home and poor people shouldn't breed.

February 10, 2005 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

murderama (Rob Gillaspie) says...

PS:

Who the fuck told you that they would take your kids away if you didn't give them eight hours of evolution classes a day? That sounds like a load of SHIT to me, you fucking liar. I always knew that deep within you beat the heart of a pro-life, pro-white (oh, I'm sorry, you know at least one "acceptable" black person), pro-sanctity of marriage, status quo-retaining HONKY. See you in the funny pages!!!!!

February 10, 2005 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

murderama (Rob Gillaspie) says...

"A quaint superstition." Y'know, like the Bible, which has somehow come back around in this state as being the ultimate dictum of scientific fact.

February 10, 2005 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

Fangorn, there is a difference between what people "think" is evolution, and what is. Furthermore, its hard to understand your problem with the definition, that is the definition of "evolution," right out of a biology text. As for your "evidentiary problems" with evolution, you should visit talkorigins.org. You know, it makes me wonder, if species dont arise from other species, like you suggest, then where do new species come from? Is it god? Or is he to busy burying dinosaur bones.

February 10, 2005 at 11:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.

"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
Bill Hicks

February 10, 2005 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

This is an video interview with Richard Dawkins, Britain's leading scientist (Oxford), discussing this very issue on PBS's NOW at

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/dawkin...

check it out. it's worth your time.

February 11, 2005 at 12:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

I agree with Fangorn to some extent, but don't you all think this is more a question of the spirit in which this whole sticker affair has arisen? I mean to say, can we really separate this issue from that fact that they seek to cast doubt upon whether the earth has existed for more than 6000 years, in order to make a space for a religious conviction which has no grounding whatever within that paradigm which takes evidence as the deciding factor in the establishment of belief? That it is necessary to continue to question the truths of science is doubtless. In fact, it is through the maintenance of this questioning disposition that science itself remains dynamic, thereby avoiding stagnation into a kind of pseudo-scientific dogmatism. And I think the latter is what Fangorn seeks to point out in elements of the scientific community: a rigid adherence to a single-track, one-sided thinking about, in this case, the origin of species. No doubt, this rigidity must be thwarted if the project is to remain scientific. But what we are contending with here is not the suggestion of an alternative scientific theory, but a "theory" based solely in faith, and one for which we may not hope to find demonstable proof or evidence (unless of course one considers the stories in the Bible to be a form of "evidence"). How are we to expect to find common ground with our neighbors if there is no standard by which to determine objective truth--namely, the standards of science. On this point, I'm sure most of you will agree: In the end, if scientific method is repudiated, we all become mere islands of opinion, hermetically sealed within ourselves with no way of discovering common ground upon which all of us stand.

More than that, what a terrible weakness (dare I say bankruptcy?) of faith it is that dictates a literal adherence to every aspect of a religious text. The Bible is one of my favorite books, but I must say that I treat it much like I do any other of my favorite books--as one great source of wisdom among many. When I read a great work of fiction or see a great film, I often walk away entirely transformed. Indeed, there have been many occasions on which I have felt as though I needed to change my way of living in some elemental way. But does that mean that I believe the stories to be literally true? Certainly not. Does the fact that I don't believe these stories to be true diminish the force of the underlying message? In no way.

February 11, 2005 at 1:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MyName (anonymous) says...

I disagree with Fangorn completely. First, there is no single unified idea about anything in science. There is no scientific brainwashing machine that forces everyone in the scientific "community" to believe the same thing. There are papers written everyday questioning pretty much every idea in science. The majority of them are never published, but they are being written by serious educated scientific people.

Second, I disagree with his assertion that evolution is the sacred cow of biology and not open to discussion. Most of the people who disagree with it aren't interested in a serious debate, because they'd lost, hands down. To put it simply, the theory has been time tested, battle tested, and is the best we've got so far. That's why it's being taught and other explanations are not.

Finally, the truth of a scientific idea has little to do with why it should or should not be taught in the classroom. Most students are taught that an atom is a dot with an electron moving around it in a circle, that time is not an illusion, and that gravity is this "force" that acts according to rules thought up by Newton in the 18th century. This is because it's a whole lot easier to teach than the whole truth (explained by Relativity, Quantum Mechanics etc). People in High School should be taught things that better their understanding of science and the truth comes later, if they're really that interested in it. The only reason evolution is getting picked on is because it kind of throws a knot into the whole religion "thing".

February 11, 2005 at 4:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alm77 (anonymous) says...

Has anyone ever noticed that the account of creation in the book of Genesis mirrors the theory of evolution?

First light, then water, next comes land, plant life, fish and birds, then reptiles and mammals, and last of all, man. The word used in Genesis for "day" is also the word used for "age". So instead of "in the first day" some interpret that as "in the first age"... I once had a biology teacher that taught evolution and explained it as something designed and prompted by a Creator. This is called The Day-Age View of creation and is an acceptable alternative among many "conservatives" to a 6,000 year old earth.

So, I don't think evolution does "throw a knot into the whole religion thing". I think it throws a knot into the stomachs of people who are afraid of what they can't explain. Again, this is where unbiased critical thinking from both sides would be helpful.

Are we to simply dismiss the fact that every culture ever discovered has or has had a religion? Or the fact that most of those cultures have an ancient belief in a Creator? Did all of the people come to the same conclusion independently by coincidence?

February 11, 2005 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

Actually, Misty's quite right. The fact that scientists are still working means that they are going to make discoveries that change the paradigm in which we view the world.

Continental drift is a perfect example, though none of us has seen it. It's a fairly new theory which took about 70 years to pass into the common consciousness. Why? Because it took that long for scientists who believed in isostasy and/or a contracting earth to die off. They were too wedded to their old ideas to accept new ones.

The origin of the moon is a second example. When I was in school in the 70s, I remember a textbook picture that postulated that the moon broke off from the earth leaving a hole which became the Pacific Ocean. The modern theory was developed by Hartmann and Davis less than 30 years ago.

So as long as we're still 'doing science', it's inevitable that we're going to discover that some of the things we believe today are 'quaint superstitions'. That ought to keep us humble about the things we think we know. We're no smarter than our grandparents, and if we think they were morons because they believed silly things, it's rather silly to assume that our grandchildren will not think the same things about us.

February 11, 2005 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

The issue here isn't science, or evolution, at all.

The issue is religious fundamentalism.

A small, agitated group of religious fundamentalists believe that they are actually under assault by society at large and by evolution in particular.

Trying to eliminate the ability of evolution to call into question their own beliefs, even by implication, they seek to prevent its being taught in public schools.

And they've been scared and threatened by evolution for a long, long time: in 1925, 15 states had laws banning the teaching of evolution.

Once the Supreme Court ruled that such laws (geared as they were towards making civil law based on fundamentalist religious beliefs) violated the First Amendment, religious fundamentalists developed their new strategy of taking over school boards.

Same goal -- controlling public education so it didn't question their fundamentalist beliefs -- different strategies.

Same paranoia that society at large is actively assaulting them and their way of life.

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society.

Societies in the mad grip of fundamentalists produce stonings of women, chopping off of hands, and suicide bombers.

Our pluralistic, non-fundamentalist society produces microchips, space shuttles and iPods.

February 11, 2005 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

"This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society."

Actually, it's not a small minority. According to Newsweek:

"Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/s...

And according to Gallup, 47% of Americans, including a majority of both women and blacks, believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_...

So if after 75 years of exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools, only half the people in America believe it, I suspect the fundamentalists have significantly less to worry about than they think they do.

February 11, 2005 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

"75 years of exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools" isn't quite right: the Supreme Court ruled anti-evolution laws unconstitutional only in 1968.

February 11, 2005 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

My mistake. I should have said "75 years after evolution was placed in classrooms across the nation".

I apologize for the error.

February 11, 2005 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

Make that 40 years... Jeez, usually I can only not count on Mondays. Now it's Friday as well?

February 11, 2005 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...

Aw, wassamatter, Rob, are they passing out pissy pills at Quintiles this month? What the hell was that all about?

February 11, 2005 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

anne_francis (anonymous) says...

Brilliant blog David! I think you should get those Bible stickers in production ASAP. I'd be willing to pass them out after closed BOE meetings and public debates on creationism vs. evolutionism. Maybe even the Rev. Terry Fox would like one:)

February 11, 2005 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

The issue of creationism is not the central question here.

The issue is how one forms one's belief system, and whether one is capable of critically entertaining other altermatives to this system. If it were the point of the stickers to encourage critical thinking, rather than make a space for dogma, then I would be in favor of such an addition to textbooks.

Encouraging critical thinking, we all know, is not the issue. It is rather one of, as D.R. says, religious fundamentalism. They seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of science as a means of answering fundamental questions.

And this is one case in which we cannot separate the message from the messenger. Why? Because the messenger wants us to fall in line with his dogma. Hence, he wants us to abandon a method of establishing belief that has proven itself valid across the whole spectrum of human culture.

How has science proven itself valid? By its capacity for generating technological progress, of course. We see the fruits of scientific progress everywhere. In fact, I'm engaging with one of them right now: my computer.

Should we continue to question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists?

Of course, but only in view of finding a more complete vision of the universe. In fact, we may to need to think about going beyond science itself to discover this--perhaps philosophy commands more of the resources necessary to come closer to answering these questions than science alone. But what is called for is certainly not, as the creationists would have it, retrogression to a less complete, subjective vision of things. Because that is the very definition of "subjective" belief, isn't it? A belief that is biased by personal prejidices, feelings, emotions.

And the emotion that governs the need to adhere to such a belief?

Fear.

February 11, 2005 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

...And can we afford to make a place for fear in our schools right now, when this moment in history calls for nothing, if not for the courage to confront ourselves?

February 11, 2005 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

"Should we continue to question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists?"

Of course we should. Scientists are not the priests of the middle ages, the fountains of all knowledge and wisdom in a world of illiterate barbarians. They are men and women just like us, and the reason they are still scientists is that they don't know everything yet. They pursue knowledge knowing that they don't know everything yet. The wisest know that they don't know much at all. The best know that everything they conclude is contingent upon the evidence they have, but that it could all change with the new evidence they seek. Every one of them seeks to find the places where science is wrong.

If scientists themselves did not question the legitimacy of the conclusions of scientists, what would they do for a living?

February 11, 2005 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...

Invent a better erection pill.

February 11, 2005 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...

Societies in the mad grip of fundamentalists produce stonings of women, chopping off of hands, and suicide bombers. Our pluralistic, non-fundamentalist society produces microchips, space shuttles and iPods.

OH MY - WHAT AN INTERESTING WAY TO SPIN FACTS OR HISTORY INTO SUPPORT FOR OPINIONS.

America was founded by a bunch of white Christian males, who wiped out Native tribes, built their wealth on the back of the slaves they owned and treated women as chattle (if that well). Oh, and they found Bible quotes to support all of that. So Bible thumpers and subvertors of its message have been with this country since it's inception.

Has much changed since that time? The inventors AND THE CURRENT PRODUCERS & BENEFICIARIES OF THE WEALTH that comes from such things as the micorchip, space shuttle and iPods (not to mention a lot of other things) are largely white males. Fundamentalism (which you use as a word to describe Christians) or Atheism doesn't matter one whit to them...As long as they can produce and not be impeded in their wealth producing efforts. The people with the real power don't care what the "little people" believe or even do, as long as they live in a society that will support and purchase it's goods. The funadamentalist Islamic states are plenty rich (read OIL). The completly secular Soviet Union and/or China lacked the system to produce the wonderful things you tout as the result of a lack of religion.

It is not lack of religous zealots, or their presence, that produced the modern wonders you mention. Science can flourish in either environment - if the proper capitalistic incentives are alive and well.

Please, for the sake of your own intellectual honesty; Be upset all you want about the gradual increase the government is placing upon God, but try to think straight when you argue against it (if you want intelligent people to "buy" your arugments)! Calling a horse a pig doesn't not make it one. No matter how many people join in the chorus!

February 12, 2005 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

Strange that the scientific project, in all of its permutations, can become so estranged from the initial spirit in which it was undertaken. Initially, the scientific idea emerged through a struggle for an integrated, holistic approach to understanding the universe. It was not something, as many believe, that had technological advancement in mind at the outset-this was merely a serendipitous byproduct. It was thought that understanding the world was good in and of itself, not, at least in principle, because of the advantages it could give man in his perennial struggle against nature or other men (Incidentally, the origins of the view that understanding the world is good in itself can be obliquely traced to the early origins of the Christian tradition-this is a subject for another time). The principle difference between science and what precedes it is that natural scientists made a break from using fables and stories about the supernatural to understand things. It represents a turn away from the gods and the "super-natural", and at once a turn toward nature. Hence, "natural" science.

So what is it that separates the West from Islam? Or, more precisely, what separates the America of 2005 from the culture of Islam?

Obviously there are fundamental rifts between our cultures on the level of ideology. But once all of the murky obscurities of this problem have evaporated, what remains is the question of technology. It is, in a word, only technology which distinguishes the America of 2005 from Islam. This fact is proved by the rapid movement to the right in this country. Ultimately, this movement toward identifying dogmatic principles as the hard-core of our culture evinces a fundamental identity between our culture and that of Islam. The marginalization of "other" communities-the gay community, for example-demonstrates this characteristic similarity. (It is clear that the "logic" of religious demagogues tends in the direction of extreme intolerance, which is, coincidentally, the same that we find in the fundamentalist Islam, only the zealots within our own communities thankfully have not been given the same degree of sway as in the culture of Islam) Yet we, contrary to the community of Islam, remain faithful in the progress that technology can generate. Indeed it has become an ideological imperative that we continue to develop technologically--a moral value, if you will. Specialization has enabled our engineers and scientists to become so estranged from the initial elemental drift of the scientific idea-that of attempting to understand our world through the identification of the governing principles of nature-that now science has become a project of personal profit. It is no longer a question of endeavoring to gain greater awareness of nature herself. Nature has been reduced to a resource for self interest and capital gain.

February 12, 2005 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

(continued) It is in the forming of this rift between science and questioning that we find the key to understanding the difference between Islam and our America.

When science became separated from the scientific idea, it made a space for the reemergence of dogma because, again, today's science (at least in terms of its "cultural" relevance) does indeed only concern itself with making Ipods, personal computers, pharmaceuticals and missiles (or, if nothing else, it is clear that the institution of science is moved chiefly by corporate interest-in a word, research and development). Technology has become a tried and true method. It no longer has any need of the scientific idea which generated technological progress in the first place. Now it can be used to gain power over our neighbor, and this is something that no doubt appeals to the fundamentalist.

What is necessary then, is a cultural realignment with the scientific idea-an idea for which the value of questioning and examining ourselves and nature is central. This obviously involves attempting to expunge dogmatic thinking from our culture and, not, as the political establishment would have, retrogressive embrace of dogmatic thinking. It is this return to critical examination and questioning which we would bring about a fundamental difference in quality between the fundamentalist violence of Islam and our America.

February 12, 2005 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lhs2002 (anonymous) says...

I think the Kansas legislature just likes having our state look ass-backwards compared to the rest of the country. their policies are done because they must like having us as the laughing stock of the country. oh well, i guess it makes for a good distraction from the "where's dorthy" crap that kansas tends to be known for.

February 12, 2005 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...

I agree booby .... Critical thinking should be encouraged and fostered, not stifled and ridiculed. Closed minds are a threat to progress and a hinderance to peace. Thus, any sticker, slogan or policy that says something like "the ideas discussed herein are theories (scientific or otherwise), are not proven facts, and the topic remains open to debate" is probably something that promoters of critical thinking would like.... Or not....

February 12, 2005 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Snoop (anonymous) says...

Reading all of this shit makes my head hurt, but some observations:

Yellow cat, you hate anybody who believes in anything, just write a blog saying all religious people are a bunch of freaken idiots and they should be shipped off to an island somewhere.
Join Fred Phelps group and stand in front of churches on Sunday morning holding up a sign saying "GOD IS MADE UP!" "GOD CAN'T HATE FAGS, CAUSE GOD AINT REAL"
GOD CAN KISS MY WHITE ASS..........oh shit I forgot god aint real you idiots!

STICKERS: Adding stickers is a retarded idea, period. Whoever came up with the concept needs to be bitch slapped. Having a long winded debate on it is simply pointless. Its is as retarded as putting a warning sticker on a cigarette pack. The fuck who came up with the idea I guarantee you sells smiley faces stickers for a living.

props to jacob......

Rama....... wow your good at being a jackass, If Mitzi thinks "mothers should stay at home and poor people shouldn't breed." I may not agree with the stay at home mom thing but yes poor people should not breed, we don't need more hillbilly ass trailer court or for that matter nappy headed ghetto babies running around Dollar General in their diapers and moms in fuzzy slippers.

"Who the fuck told you that they would take your kids away if you didn't give them eight hours of evolution classes a day? That sounds like a load of SHIT to me, you fucking liar. I always knew that deep within you beat the heart of a pro-life, pro-white (oh, I'm sorry, you know at least one "acceptable" black person), pro-sanctity of marriage, status quo-retaining HONKY. See you in the funny pages!!!!!"

What the fuck are you talking about, and how many darkies do YOU know and socialize with?
And if you say I had a negro friend in high school I will piss in your corn flakes.
Congrats on the second genius to use the word honky on Da Blogs!

February 12, 2005 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

thetom (anonymous) says...

booby:

Man you sure talk purty.

And while I don't believe that faith and science are diametrically opposed (there would be little science without faith), I DO believe that fundamentalist christianity is antithetical to critical thinking.

I'm sure many of us have a take on what the central issue is in all of this and I have mine. And that is: if the fundumentalists have strong religous convictions, fine. But - and I'm serious - stay the fuck away from my kids.

February 12, 2005 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jen82 (anonymous) says...

I have a BS in Genetics and study evolution as sort of a hobby (I also took the evolution class at KU).

I don't have anything really profound to add, but here are my two cents:

*Evolution is a "theory." So is gravity.
*I have studied for science for years, and currently work full time in a lab. In my experience, the controversy amongst scientists is not whether or not evolution occurred, it's by what means (just one example: Darwin vs. Gould).
*Separation of church and state: this good old-fashioned amendment apparently no longer applies (my lab in Missouri wishes to do stem cell research that could benefit people with severe spinal disease/damage...a new bill has been proposed that would make this a felony. The only opposing argument is religious. This, however, is an entirely different can of worms).
*Education is important. Science is taught at schools. Religion is taught at home. See above.
*Most of the people who try to argue with me regarding evolution have NEVER EVEN READ A BOOK ABOUT IT. I refuse to argue evolution with someone whose only knowledge stems from what their church tells them evolution texts say (it's the same concept as an atheist who has never read the Bible cannot legitimately argue with a christian about religion). For example: You can't tell me that there are holes in the fossil record and that's your only argument. If a text (or common sense) had been consulted, you would know that volcanoes, earthquakes, and plate movements have a nasty habit of destroying and moving delicate fossils.
*I agree with the above statements regarding scientific method: it's a beautiful thing.
*I also agree that this isn't necessarily an evolution issue: it's a stop forcing your religion on everyone else issue.
*In response to the polls cited above: How many people were polled? In what locations? 1000 people in Texas doesn't count.
*This isn't the most intelligent argument, I know, but I wasn't totally prepared for it.

February 12, 2005 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jen82 (anonymous) says...

Oh, and I also agree that religion and science don't have to always conflict. Come on, we all took western civ: Galileo "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina."

Oh wait. Who actually read all of those books?

February 12, 2005 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

jen82, although we are on the same wavelength, I am going to take your statement one step further, to clarify. Follow me on this, the definition of theory is, "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena." Therefore, evolution is a fact, organisms change from generation to generation, it occured in the past and is occuring in the present, there is proof, do a search on speciation. However, the "theory of evolution," is a theory, obviously. If it so happens that they put "evolution is just a theory" on textbooks, its an outright lie, because evolution(to specify, I mean the definition of evolution)is a fact, and also a theory that tries to explain the fact.

It is this deliberate misinterpretation of "theory" as an "almost truth" by creationists that causes confusion. Why would creationist attack the theory, all it does is try to explain the fact. Whether the theory is still there, the fact remains. And it seems like, if you asked me, that their problem lies in the "fact," not the theory. So why? Is it possible that they cant disprove the fact, so they misinterpret the meaning of "theory," thats what it sounds like. Convincing people to turn a blind eye to fact. Or possibly creationists are just cognitively impaired, who knows?

Have you ever noticed that people who believe in creationism look really unevolved.

February 12, 2005 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

Example:

"Einstiens theory of gravitation replaced Newtons, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome." Meaning, gravity is a fact, the theory of gravitation isnt, its a theory.

February 12, 2005 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HTR (anonymous) says...

Just thought this might be useful to chime in with, on the angle of religion and science not needing to contradict each other ... it's from Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and a deeply religious evangelical Christian, basically explaining how it's possible to be both:

"Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument - one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary. If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am."

Of course, if all evangelicals thought things through as far as Collins does, and if all science types were as willing to open their minds to the idea of faith in something you can't see, hold or measure, we'd have very few problems...

February 13, 2005 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

boobyfish (Allen Jones) says...

Nice comment, HTR. The converse of that is this: that both science AND religion can be bastardized. It's this tendency which has to be combated. What gives rise to these bastardizations is borne of essentially the same human impulse in science as in religion--namely, the impulse to take some belief as true in some ultimate, incontestable and unquestioning way.

February 13, 2005 at 1:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jen82 (anonymous) says...

aegrisomnia:
Using your example: We prove gravity exists only by using the theory of gravitation. If the theory of gravitation doesn't exist, neither does gravity (in scientific terms). The definition of theory from a scientific point of view does not imply fact. Rather, a theory is an idea accepted within the scientific community that has not yet been disproved. In other words, according to what I've learned of scientific method and theory since I was a kindergartener, you cannot accept theory for fact. Reason being, there is no possible way to absolutely prove the theory (we can see microevolution occur, but we cannot see macroevolution occur before our eyes, though the fossil record is a good account). A theory stands until it is disproved.
Because the term theory is interpreted as such within the scientific community, creationists have been able to manipulate it very easily to fit their purpose (as they often do).
I pointed out that gravity is a theory, though, as you pointed out, it's as good as fact. All of the evidence points toward gravity holding us to this earth, and not say ...a supernatural force. Until someone proves otherwise, the theory of gravity holds.
I accept gravity as fact and evolution as fact, though as a scientist, I know that since no one witnessed the evolution of life on this planet (or any other sure proof), I cannot officially claim it as fact.
Science wouldn't be science if we didn't constantly question ourselves and each other. This definition of theory stands to allow for this. (This is also why the scientific method exists ...the experiment must be repeatable, so that any other scientist can get the same results--many a fabricator has been exposed this way, and many a revolutionary theory has been accepted.)
Darwin was not, by far, the first person to propose evolution (in fact, Aristotle and some before him had their own ideas on evolution...much different that Darwin's, that had stood for 2000 years or more; Wallace also published a paper at the same time as Darwin, stating similar conclusions that he reached independently). If you think the scientific community took his ideas sitting down, you're mistaken.
Rest assured that his ideas have been explored endlessly and put the the test is various ways. While he was wrong on a very few points, and had, at the time a weak argument (until Mendel's work resurfaced), he was almost entirely correct, and his theory holds.
The exact mechanism, as I mentioned, is still hotly debated.

Suggested reading:
Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker"
Charles Darwin, "The Voyage of the Beagle," and "The Origin of Species"
Lyell's famous account of geography that inspired Darwin

And then try:
Any Stephen Jay Gould
Any papers written as Gould vs. the Darwinists

February 13, 2005 at 2:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

My revised compromise sticker (the first was was too "leading"): Phill Kline, you're free to use it.

Caution: Serious disagreement among readers has existed for thousands of years about the stories in this Bible, and there are hundreds of religious stories throughout the world that contradict and call into question the stories in this Bible. This Bible should be approached with an open mind and a spirit of critical consideration.

There's nothing in this draft compromise sticker that isn't simply a fact.

If the goal is to prevent children from being exposed to "theories" or "stories" as if they were literal truth and facts, why not apply that logic to religion as well as science?

Great comments from everyone, with the exception of Snoop's little micro-tantrum.

Snoop, you misunderstand the goals of critical thinking: it's not hate to challenge some dangerous assumptions: it's wanting to protect the Constitution from a small group of loud religious agitators. Just like citizens who question authority aren't motivated by hate of the authority, as from your comments one might reasonably expect you to believe; rather, they're motivated by the need to hold power accountable to citizens, from whom those in authority derive their power to govern.

I understand that it's easier to brush off a topic by suggesting I'm motivated simply by hate than to actually engage the topic, and that, being easier, you take that route rather than the harder one. That's human nature.

Oh: and here's another compromise position: those wishing to put a semblance of the 10 commandments in courthouses can freely do so -- if they put prominently and publicly in every church and place of worship across America a copy of the First Amendment admonition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Because what it boils down to is, you don't have problems with my thinking: you've got problems with the Constitution.

I don't have problems with the Constitution. I wish we'd follow in its brilliant Enlightenment ethos.

February 13, 2005 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

And my comment above that these issues have "everything to do with a small minority of religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their closed minds on American society" is born out by Scott Rothschild's reporting into today's Journal-World on the topic of the anti-Gay Kansas constitutional amendment:

From the article (http://www.ljworld.com/section/legisl...

"In 2004, the House failed to gain the two-thirds majority needed to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot.

"That angered a group of Christian fundamentalist ministers, who then mobilized to energize voters during the Republican Party primary in August.

"They worked overtime to defeat four Republican incumbents who had voted against the amendment.

"And the ministers succeeded.

"The four incumbents were bounced by a combined 854 votes in the four primary contests.

"That helped put the wheels on track for the two-thirds majority vote by the House earlier this month, which set the April 5 statewide vote on the amendment."

I respectfully point out that the writers of the Constitution themselves sought to prevent the blending of religion and civil law -- hence the First Amendment.

When someone swears or affirms to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," they are swearing to preserve, protect and defend the separation of religion and state -- for the good of both.

Which is even more important in an age where the blending of religion with state power (in such countries as Saudi Arabia, from where the 9/11 hijackers mostly came, and Afghanistan in the recent past, and Iran, where religious fundamentalists repress their citizens' freedoms and rights based on religious, not civil, law) is so rampant and destructive.

Those religious states are modern object lessons for what the writers of the Constitution sought to avoid here in America.

Which is even more impressive when you consider they knew very well that they were making illegal an establishment of Christian religion in America, along with any other religion.

Why, I wonder, do so many Americans seek to undo what the writers of our own Constitution, light of the free world, fought and died to establish?

February 13, 2005 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

aegrisomnia (anonymous) says...

jen82, its suprising that you mention to read Stephen Jay Gould, and then disagree with me. Maybe you should read him, I am echoing his viewpoint and the exampe I posted on gravity is a Gould quote. And using his example we show that gravity exists with or without the theory. Try this, take away any mechanism/theory we use to explain what we call evolution, and then think about whether "populations of organisms change from one generation to the next." If they do still change, and they do, then evolution is a fact. The theory just explains the fact.

February 13, 2005 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Snoop (anonymous) says...

Mr. Dog you can hide behind all of your seemingly calm condescending elitist platitudes, but I simply call a spade a spade and you don't like it.

You state "Snoop, you misunderstand the goals of critical thinking: it's not hate to challenge some dangerous assumptions: it's wanting to protect the Constitution from a small group of loud religious agitators."

Mr. Dog get real I have read your stuff for more than a year now, some of the other posters may enjoy the seemingly pithy dialogue with you but I see you for what you really are.
Types like yourself continue to throw out words like "dangerous" "religious fanatics" "right wing zealots" and because the majority of people are willing to pat you on the head and excuse yours and other liberals real goal and that is to demonize religious right.
I actually don't disagree with your general premise, as I am far more open minded than you assume.
You consistently use "code words" to paint a picture of doom as a result of these right wing freaks and their agendas and their attempt to corrupt the constitution.
And you constantly come up with this crap about "critical thinking", I'm sorry the Snoop continues not to let you get away with this crap.

February 13, 2005 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jen82 (anonymous) says...

aegrisomnia:
actually, i don't wholly agree with gould, at this moment (i'm still in the process of going through books). however, i agree with the point above.
i was just pointing out the traditional definition of theory, that can easily be misconstrued.
also, the suggested reading was for everyone: arm yourselves.

February 14, 2005 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jen82 (anonymous) says...

i also forgot to add the disclaimer on 2/13:
"i'm writing this comment while intoxicated. points in the following passage may not make any sense."

;)

February 14, 2005 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...

http://elborak.blog-city.com/read/106...

Check it out

February 14, 2005 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

Ya, Snoop, you know, whatever.

"Code words"?

Do you have a secret ring, too, from a box of cereal, that lets you see those code words under what, a black light?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Do you have a problem with those "code words"?

February 14, 2005 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kec (anonymous) says...

David's counter-sticker idea hits the nail on the head. Millions of people accept evolution, just as millions accept creationism, or ID. In our PC-oriented world, the only right solution to appease everyone would be the dual-sticker approach.

Science and theology do not have to be considered mutually exclusive. In fact, the two approaches have co-existed for centuries. Consider this from Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J., Ph.D., an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory:

"It was only with the rise of literacy in the 1500s that a lot of people who knew (barely) how to read, but otherwise did not have much of a sophisticated education, started interpreting the Bible for themselves as if it were some sort of 'magic book.' And the more the Church tried to stop this sloppy theology, the more that the English (and thus anti-Roman) historians on whom our culture is based condemned the Church for restricting 'freedom of thought.'
"The big problem for the newly literate was that the Bible seemed to say things directly contradicted by scientific evidence. For instance, geology demonstrated that the Earth must be millions of years old, while the Bible said it was created only 6000 years ago.
"But wait a minute; that's not actually in the Bible. It's only the result of a foolish calculation by an English bishop in the 1600s."

And this:
"Evolution is [another] major issue that leads people to believe that science is incompatible with religious teaching. Again, it's important to distinguish between what fringe fundamentalists have said, and what is actual Catholic or other mainstream Christian teaching. The Catholic Church never formally condemned 'evolution.' Indeed, the only two times Popes spoke on the matter, in the 1940s and in Pope John Paul II's recent statement, it said just the opposite. They saw no conflict to religion in the theory of evolution, as long as one acknowledged God the creator acting in this way.
"The denial of scientific knowledge is not a prerequisite of religious faith; nor is it necessary to deny the existence of God in order to pursue science."

Why are some people so afraid of teaching both, and letting individuals decide for themselves which they accept -- or, in fact, whether they accept both creationsim and evolution in concert.

February 14, 2005 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

godjilla (Jill Ensley) says...

*walks by wearing a trenchcoat, opens it wide, shakes it a little and runs*

February 14, 2005 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says...

From the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:

Main Entry: the*o*ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

Evolution is a theory incorporates a large body of evidence to explain a phenomenon, just like the theory of gravity.

Creationism is a myth. Until there is a large body of evidence that can prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and created in 6 days, the only business creationism has in school is during discussions of mythology, philosophy or religion.

-BA

February 14, 2005 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ultimate175 (anonymous) says...

I'm sorry I don't have time to read through every post on here, but it seems like those who are sticker bashing (I actually don't like the sticker idea either) are guilty of severe oversimplification on the issue. I saw one post that referenced talkorigins.com, as if the existence of that website compellingly dispells all evolutionary dissent. I've also seen "evolution" defined in this thread as "change over time". Profound.

Everyone here knows that "evolution" means much more than that when this issue is debated. It means essentially that natural selection acting on random variations (mutations, gene transfers, etc.) have unlimited creative ability, and indeed are responsible for the entire history of life on earth.

There are many scientists who disagree with this, and there are major, foundational problems with Darwinism. I've read countless people claim that it has been "battle tested" and "proven", etc., and that's absurd. It has been demonstrated repeatedly under the species level, and for relatively trivial changes. It has not been demonstrated beyond that. It is assumed beyond that.

Irreducibly complex biochemical systems are an interesting, and I think grave, challenge to Darwinian mechanisms. Anyone want to talk about these?

February 14, 2005 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says...

It's interesting (and telling) that all the creationists are able to come up nit-picky challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory that are easily countered with a little further scientific exploration, instead of coming up with any shred of credible evidence that supports creationism (besides what come from a several thousand year old collection of religious themed writings).

Where is the wreckage of Noah's Ark? The bones of Noah's whale? Evidence pinpointing that all human life arose from the genetic material of only two people? Tell me how the inbred descendents of Adam and Eve didn't end up with flippers for hands, and then we can talk complex biochemical systems.

-BA

February 14, 2005 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ultimate175 (anonymous) says...

Irreducibly complex biochemical systems are not nit-picky challenges to Darwinism. Neither is the Cambrian Explosion. Neither is stasis in the fossil record (which Gould tried to explain away with punctuated equilibrium). Neither is the fact that many homologous structures have non-homologous genetic origins. Etc. etc.

This is all data that doesn't "fit" Darwinian theory, and most of it isn't trivial. Evolution undoubtedly occurs, but there is good reason - scientific reason - to doubt that it has the explanatory power that science has given it.

February 14, 2005 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ultimate175 (anonymous) says...

By the way BA, these complex biochemical systems require a good explanation before we start talking about the "evolution" of entire organisms like humans. The biochemical systems are found in the very earliest organisms on Earth. The flagellum (an irreducibly complex motor), is found in the earliest bacteria, and it has been labelled the most efficient machine in the universe (by a Harvard biologist). It makes little sense to me to claim with arrogant confidence that humans (or anything for that matter) evolved, when the lowly bacterial flagellum seems to be beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution.

February 14, 2005 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) says...

"Irreducibly complex" is another of these code words that are a tip off that all Ultimate is doing is reciting, without any critical thought, the arguments of Michal Behe, or one of his "disciples."
Just because we don't have an understanding of how a biological process arose, does not mean that we can make the jump to saying that it was divinely created.
A few hundred years ago, the flat